Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I suggest that every person print this off and keep it on hand.
    ***************************************************************
    
                   Dealing with Sexual Harassment

                      by Mary P. Rowe

Reprinted w/o permission from Harvard Business Review
Reprint #81339

Mary P. Rowe, a labor economist, is special assistant to the president of 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Since 1973, she has worked as a 
mediator with hundreds of cases from MIT and from other universities and 
corporations.


As the recent attention in the press and on television attests, managers 
are encountering sexual harassment problems more and more frequently. 
Although by now many corporations have investigated the legal side of these 
issues and have adopted appropriate policies, reaching an easy resolution 
in such cases is difficult for the following reasons:

o People cannot agree about how to define the problem.  In sexual 
harassment cases, managers will find the widest divergence of perceptions 
that they ever encounter.

o There is usually little evidence to substantiate anyone's allegations.  
The employer often feels that something ought to be done but can think of 
no action to take that does not infringe on the rights of one side or the 
other.

o Although third-party intervention often heals other kinds of disputes, 
such action in a sexual harassment case usually triggers wider disagreement 
between the original actors, who then persuade bystanders to take sides.

o No matter how carefull worded the corporate policy concerning sexual 
harassment is, new kinds of cases arise, and in such variety as to prevent 
any precise anticipation of problems.

o Those offended may be unwilling to report sexual harassment if they think 
that public exposure of the situation and mandatory punishment of the 
offender will follow.  Often they will talk with the manager only under an 
agreement that no public action will be taken.  (It is rate, in my 
experience, for a complainant to ask for any kind of retribution; nearly 
always this person simply wants the harassment to stop).

o The most serious aspect of almost all reported cases is the power 
relationship between the alleged offender and the offended person.  (I 
believe that most sexual agressiveness that occurs *outside* a power 
relationship is simply ignored or adequately dealt with by the offended 
party.)  In any case, reports of harassment usually involve fear of 
retribution because of the supposed power of a particular group of 
coworkers or of a supervisor.  In fact, most reported cases do involve a 
supervisor-subordinate relationship; hence, productivity is threatened.

Some practical approaches

I offer three recommendations for addressing these problems.  First, 
complainants can be helped to help themselves.  Second, such conflicts can 
usually be resolved most effectively through procedures designed to deal 
with all kinds of complaints, not just sexual harassment.  Third, 
corporation should confront the issue of power differences in the troubled 
relationship.

An employer must give unmistakable signals that action will be taken 
against proved offenders, if the complainant will agree, and also that 
proved targets of harassment will be protected from retaliation.  But those 
who deal with offended employees should first explore the possibilities of 
helping them to help themselves when there is no proof, and, of course, 
when the complainants prefer this method.

The sections that follow may be of special interest to offended persons 
whose companies do not yet have policies and structures to support them.

What can the individual do?

Complainants must be willing to take action themselves in a rational and 
responsible way.  To many people this may seem unjust since it appears to 
put a double burden on the offended person.  This concern makes sense.  But 
I recommend such action because it works and because nothing else really 
works as well.

Moreover, it helps offended persons to focus their anger outside themselves 
instead of becoming sick or depressed, which often happens otherwise.  
Finally, such measures may be the only way to obtain evidence for 
management (or the courts) to act on.

The aims of individual action are:

> To give the offended and offender a chance, usually for the first time, 
to see things the same way.  Since neither person may have any 
understanding of how the other sees the problem, discussion may help.  
Entry of a third party at this stage usually further polarizes the views of 
the opposing persons.

> To give those who are wrongly accused the chance to defend themselves.

> To give those who are correctly, or to some extent correctly, accused the 
chance to make amends. (This may not be possible in serious cases.)

> To provide some evidence of the offense, since usually there is no 
substantive evidence at all.  This step is vital if management or the 
courts must later take action.

> To give aggressors who do not understand what they were doing a fair 
warning, if this is appropriate.

> To provide the offended employee a chance to get the harassment stopped 
without provoking public counterattack, experiencing public embarrassment, 
harming third parties, damaging the company's reputation, or causing the 
aggressor to lose face.  In my experience, these points are almost always 
considered important by the aggrieved person.

> To provide offended persons a way to demonstrate that they tried all 
reasonable means to get the offender to stop.  This step may be convincing 
later to supervisors, spouses, and others who have become involved.

> To encourage ambivalent complainants, as well as those who have 
inadvertently given misunderstood signals, to present a consistent and 
clear message.

Writing a letter:  One method that works quite consistenly, even when many 
verbal requests have failed, is for the offended person to write a letter 
to the accused.  I usually recommend a polite, low-key letter (which may 
necessitate many drafts).

The letter I recommend has three parts.  The first part should be a 
detailed statement of facts as the writer sees them: "This is what I think 
happened..."  I encourage a precise rendition of all facts and dates 
relevant to the alleged harassment.  This section is sometimes very long.

In the second part of the letter, writers should describe their feelings 
and what damage they think has been done.  This is where opinions belong.  
"Your actions made me feel terrible"; "I am deeply embarrassed and worried 
that my parents will hear about this"; "You have caused me to ask for a 
transfer (change my career objectives; drop out of the training course; 
take excessive time off; or whatever)."  The writer should mention any 
perceived or actual costs and damages, along with feelings of dismay, 
distrust, revulsion, misery, and so on.

Finally, I recommend a short statement of what the accuser would like to 
have happen next.  Since most persons only want the harassment to end, the 
letter might finish by saying so: "I ask that our relationship from now on 
be on a purely professional basis."  

Someone who knows that he or she contributed to the problem does well to 
say so: "Although we once were happy dating, it is important to me that we 
now reestablish a formal and professional relationship, and I ask you to do 
so."

If the letter writer believes some remedy or recompense is in order, this 
is the place to say so:  "Please withdraw my last evaluation until we can 
work out a fair one"; "I will need a written answer as to the reference you 
will provide from now on"; and statements of that type.

What happens next:  The complainant should, if possible, deliver the letter 
in person to know that it arrived and when it arrived.  When necessary, a 
plainclothes police officer, security person, or some other protector 
and/or witness should accompany the writer or be present when the letter is 
delivered.  The writer of the letter should keep a copy.

Usually the recipient simply accepts the letter, says nothing, and reforms 
his or her  behavior.  Sometimes there is an apology, an astounded opening 
of discussion, or a denial.  Rarely will the recipient reply in writing to 
"set the record straight."  Nearly always, the alleged harassment stops.

Obviously, it is now more dangerous for the recipient of such a letter to 
harass the employee.  The letter constitutes an attempt to settle the 
problem peaceably.

A good letter is useful if the complainant later feels the need to appeal 
to high-level management, especially if the writer can prove it was 
delivered.  It can also, if necessary, constitute invaluable legal 
evidence.  Such letters are usually enough to stop a mildly disturbed 
aggressor--for example, someone who importunes with sexual inuendo and 
suggestions for sexual activity.

Even if a written order or request to stop harassment does not succeed, in 
my experience the complainant is always better off for having tried tostop 
the offense in a direct and unambiguous way.

Finally, and possibly most important, taking action in this or similar ways 
often has a powerful effect on all participants.  Taut nerves relax as 
victims learn they can protect themselves.  Insomniacs get needed sleep.  
Productivity improves.

Both persons are likely to feel better about themselves.  Aggressors 
sometimes turn for help, through which their self-esteem may rise.  They 
may also stop harassing people, thus sparing those who could have become 
victims; this often matter greatly to the person who takes action.

For all these reasons I strongly encourage persons who feel harassed to 
take action themselves if possible.

Employer's role

By what I have said so far I do not mean to imply that employers should 
place all the burden on those who are offended.  Employers can and should 
encourage employees to take the measures already discussed.  They may need 
to protect their employees from retaliation from a group of coworkers or a 
supervisor and also to offer strong emotional support.

If significant evidence of wrong-doing is available, the employer may also 
wish to reprimand the offender, deny a promotion or raise, require 
attendance at a training program, or transfer, demote, or fire the 
offender.

What about persons who are too bewildered, frightened, or unsure even to 
write a letter?  Obviously it helps them to talk things over, in 
confidence, with one or two responsible and supportive people.

If, as frequently happens, an offended employee is suffering physical 
consequences, such as anorexia, sleeplessness, or anxiety-induced pain, he 
or she may need medical help.  Some victims will want to talk things out 
with a social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, Employee Assistance 
person, or other company counselor, if such people are known to be discreet 
and supportive.

Special measures

It often helps the offended person to keep a diary, a careful log of events 
and feelings.  This can serve to affirm the sanity of the writer, who 
otherwise may begin to doubt the reality of the situation, especially if 
coworkers are unaware or unsympathetic.

Writing in a diary will help to turn anger outward and will provide clues 
for responsible action by the offended person and by management.  It can 
provide legal evidence as well.  Keeping a diary may also resolve 
ambivalence ("Am I interested in him/her?") or demonstrate later one's lack 
of ambivalence to a doubting observer.  A careful diary is always useful 
later if it seems wise to write a letter of the sort I described earlier.

Persons who feel victimized should do whatever they can to get together 
with others who will understand.  Women's networks can help a great deal.  
If the company has no such structure, a woman should try to form one with 
the knowledge and approval of management.  Management stands to gain from 
such groups since in-house women's networks usually give strong support to 
orderly and responsible change.  Outside the workplace, there are 
compassionate and responsible organizations like the Alliance Against 
Sexual Coercion, the Working Women's Institute, and the National Commission 
on Working Women.

Cases of sexual harassment in which the complainant is a man are rare but 
especially painful.  The typcial offender is also male, and a male target 
often feels alone because he is too embarrassed to discuss his problem.  As 
with most female victims, the principal problems for men may be to overcome 
bewilderment and the immobilizing effect of violent fantasies.  They, too, 
need to muster courage to take action.

Here again, there is no substitute for discussing the problem with 
discreet, sympathetic, and responsible people.  The man who feels sexually 
harassed should make every effort to find help.  (Senior supervisors and 
commissions against discrimination are often helpful.)  In the meantime, a 
male who feels harassed should keep a diary and consider writing a letter.

Effective complaint procedures

Sexual harassment problems have illuminated the general need for better 
complaint procedures.  Union grievance procedures should be reviewed to see 
if they really work with respect to this class of complaints.

Companies should also have explicit general complaint procedures for 
employees not in unions.  To deal adequately with sexual harassment, 
non-union complaint procedures must apply to employees and managers at 
every level.  In my experience, the degree of sexual harassment is about 
the same at every level of employment. Studies show that many top managers 
are poorly informed about sexual harassment: usually people do not 
misbehave in front of the boss.  It is not true, however, tht sexual 
harassment is relatively rare near the top.

Nonunion complaint procedures should be as general as possible, admitting 
every kind of employee and every kind of concern.  Sexual harassment cases 
will represent only a small percentage of the problems brought in, but the 
grievance procedure will enjoy a better and wider reputation and will 
operate more effectively if it works well with every kind of employee 
concern.  In such procedures, it should be unnecessary to give a label to 
every problem, especially a very controversial problem, before management 
can help.

With poorly defined and controversial problems like sexual harassment, 
mediation-oriented procedures work best, at least in the first stages; 
usually the first hope is to help people help themselves.  Initial contact 
with the procedure must, of course, be completely confidential.

The complaint procedure should include both women and men, minorities and 
nonminorities, as contacts at some point in the process to ensure that 
different people feel free to come in.  It is also essential to establish a 
procedure for bypassing one's supervisor in a case where that person is the 
offender.  Finally, nonunion complaint procedures should be okayed by the 
CEO or someone else neara the top.

The power relationship

Employers may find it helps in dealing with sexual harassment problems to 
confront directly the general issue of sexual relationships in the 
supervisory context.

Many people feel strongly that the private lives of employees have nothing 
to do with company business.  However, sexual relationships in the context 
of supervision often present management with problems that affect company 
interests.  Thismay be true even in the case of mutually consenting 
relationships.

When a senior person makes sexual overtures, a junior person may experience 
and allege coercion, exploitation, intimidation, and blackmail, and may 
fear retribution.  Such reactions are common even when the senior person 
would be shocked to learn that the overtures were unwelcome.  Neither sex 
can know for sure what the other experiences, and each is likely to 
misinterpret the feelings of the other.

Also, consenting relationships frequently break up.  If the senior person 
then continues to make overtures, the junior person may complain of 
harassment.  Then the senior person may be outraged, especially if he or 
she believes that the junior person "started it."  The relationship may 
then disrupt the work environment.

Third parties sometimes complain bitterly about sexual relationships 
involving a supervisor.  Spouses may be outspoken complainants; employees 
may resent real or preceived favoritism; and the morale of the senior 
person's subordinates may drop sharply.  In consenting relationships that 
involve a junior person who is trading sexual favors for advancement, 
management's interests are jeopardized, especially if the junior person is 
not the employee most deserving of promotion.

Sexual relationships between supervisor and subordinate are frequently very 
distracting to these two.  Also, the existence of widely known consenting 
relationships sometimes encourages other supervisors to make unwelcome 
sexual overtures to other employees.

Some companies act on the principle that all sexual relationships between 
supervisors and their subordinates may conflict with company interests.  
Where genuine loving relationships do arise, the supervisor should be 
expected to take steps quickly to deal with the conflict of interest.  
Sometimes supervision of the junior employee can be transferred to another 
manager.  Or the senior member of the pair might discuss the situation with 
management.

This kind of policy may serve another purpose.  The supervisor who is a 
target of unwanted seduction attempts, as well as the employee who is 
unhappy at being propositioned, is often reluctant to hurt the other 
person's feelings.  And often it may not be clear whether unwelcome sexual 
overtures should be considered harassment.

It can help in such situations for the beleaguered party to have a company 
policy to fall back on so that it becomes unnecessary to define a 
proposition as harassment or to tell someone that he or she is not an 
attractive partner.  It is simpler to say, "We can't."

Finally, a company policy against sexual relationships in supervision may 
be critical to the success of mentoring programs for women.  It is 
absolutely vital to the success of women that they be seen to advance on 
the basis of the quality of their work and that they receive the same 
guidance and sponsorship that men receive.

Successful mentor alliances require men and women to work closely together. 
Thus men must feel free to encourage and criticize the performance of women 
without innuendo from others and without provoking suspicion.  Programs for 
advancement, for men as well as for women, can succeed only in an 
atmosphere where neither harassment nor the fear of it exists.

    re: .0
    
    No one doubts the importance of sexual harassment as a legal and moral
    issue, especially after this past week's Senate confirmation hearings,
    which, I assume, spawned the base note. To advocate that everyone print
    off a copyrighted article entered without permission, however noble the
    purpose, undercuts some of the moral and legal issues you want to
    raise. I suggest you contact the author or the journal and see if there
    is a better way to get these thoughts distributed.

    Sign in one of  the Customer's sites that I've been at"
    
    		SEXUAL HARRASSMENT WILL NOT BE REPORTED
    
    			However
    
    		It WILL be graded!!!!!
    
    (8^)*
    
    JaKe
    

    I know that sexual harassment is real and is a problem.  I also
    disbelieve that any laws about the subject will help anyone but
    lawyers.
    
    The fact of the matter is that the same behavior may be classified as
    flirtation by one "victim" and as harassment by another in borderline
    cases.  Under these circumstances, its "his word against hers".  The
    amount of legal activity generated by such cases is likely to be
    completely out of proportion, especially if countercharges are filed as
    seems to be the trend. 
    
    If we could identify the kinds of evidence that will make simple cases
    easy to prosecute in court we would be doing everyone a favor.  If only
    the most crass cases can be won, then anti-harassment laws raise false
    hopes for many.  What kinds of evidence are useful for the repeated
    low-level harassment situation?
    
    Dick

No one should ever feel coerced into any kind of relationship against
their wishes and contrary to the exercising of their free will.
That said however, it's a fact of life that sexual harassment exists
in the workplace.  It's not pleasant, but, as was made vividly clear
last week on network television, it can no longer be brushed aside or
secreted in a closet.

As our society becomes more service and convenience oriented and more
technologically advanced, as the economy shifts toward greater imple-
mentation of productivity and facility, the women find it easier to
compete, easier to perform and assimilate into the workforce.

This shift from manpower to mindpower has made it possible for women to
become equal and effective co-workers in all types of jobs; from car
assembly lines to high power utility lines, from classrooms to operating
rooms.  They're working with us and dying with us, in police cars and
army helicopters.  When are we going to realize that women belong, that
they contribute, and that they are not at our service.

I'll admit to a certain ambivalence about accepting women in the work-
place.  I lament the loss of a socio/economic order where a single wage-
earner (preferably the father) could provide for his family by honest
labor for a decent living wage, in peace and dignity.  The economic
system of the world seems so perverse in its incessant demand for more
and higher costs for even the barest of life's necessities.  Who knows
where it will all end?  I certainly do not.  I control only my allotted
time slice of existence; I will never pass this way again; who am I to
harm another human being.


/Mike

    re: last What last week showed me was that a man can say anything he 
    wants to a women and get away with it.  And I have little doubt that 
    if Hill's statements to the FBI had not been leaked to the press, the
    situation would have been swept under the rug.
    
    There are more women in the world than men.  Add to that the
    number of men lost in war and the number of men who prefer (home)life 
    without women, and you have quite a few women who have no choice but to 
    support themselves -- even if they would prefer to 'stay at home and 
    take care of the kids.'  And then, of course, there are those women who 
    prefer (home)life without men.
    
    So, since you are uncomfortable with women in the workplace, what do
    you propose for those of us who weren't fortunate (or unfortunate,
    depending on how you look at it ;-) enough to marry a meal ticket?  

	This whole thing can very well become a huge juggernaut,
	crushing guilty and innocent in its path.

	If the trend accelerates, I expect to see more of what
	happened here at the CSC when they had forced sexual
	harassment indoctrination.  Some groups became so
	sensitive that the work interaction between members of
	opposite sexes became tentative.....everyone was walking on
	eggshells.  Some people backed off from dealing with
	members of the opposite sex unless there was a dire need.

	All this for fear of a mis-construed statement resulting
	in a trip to personnnel.  Maybe they weren't just being
	paranoid.

	As this situation gathers steam, it now becomes apparent
	that the most sensitive person in any situation becomes
	the one who sets the tone of the dialogue.  If there is
	any possibility that someone MAY CONCEIVABLY be offended,
	then the behaviour or conversation is proscribed.

	Luckily, I've worked with a couple of teams here at the center
	where most of the blue-noses' sermons are laughed off.  We
	get along just fine, thank you, by simply interacting as
	adults and using normal societal cues to let each other know
	when we cross the line of propriety.

	The buzz words provided by "the harassment police" have been
	turned into a series of running jokes:

		"Aha!  Third party offense!  Go to personnel....go
		  directly to personnel....do not collect $200 !"

		"Please stand by while we contact personnel and
	   	 continue this discussion..."

		"Speak into the plant please....and repeat that remark
		  about my <fill in miscellaneous body part>."

	This approach works for most of us.  For some, it is deadly
	serious, and there is a concerted effort to tiptoe around
	the most "sensitive."

	How to protect ourselves ?


	1) For women, and cases of harassment involving the job:

		Make lotsa noise when it happens, and involve
		management at any appropriate level.

	2) For men, in cases of harassment involving the job.

		Do the same.

	3) For men, to protect themselves should this harassment
		business escalate to gargantuan proportions :


		Don't hire women.....

	Steve H

    .7
    
    Thank you , Steve for your incredibly inappropriate,sexist and
    discriminatory remark under .3.
    
    Normally speaking, it takes a lot to offend me, and you have 
    managed to do that in just three words.
    
    

    re .7
    
    You forgot the really important question for men ...
    
    4) How do you defend yourself against a false accusation of harassment?
    
    	(Her word against yours)
    
    Dick

>    Thank you , Steve for your incredibly inappropriate,sexist and
>    discriminatory remark under .3.
>    
>    Normally speaking, it takes a lot to offend me, and you have 
>    managed to do that in just three words.
    

	Incredible.  This is the exact response I described in my 
	earlier note.
    
	Please understand ( for the sake of any pending personnel,
	legal, or management action that may be now be pending ):

	I did not advocate not hiring women.

	I simply feel that this may be an inevitable side effect
	of the whole harassment bumfuddle.  To put it in
	computer pseudo-code:

	When( Accusation == Truth )
	   Then
		Reduce_Source_Of_Accusations;

	I don't believe we can have it both ways.    

	Steve H

    	And just when I thought we actually had a reasonable, adult
    discussion taking place for a change. I was almost afraid to start
    reading this note but actually found the first several replies very
    reasonable.
    	I think it's the definition of what constitutes harassment (sexual
    or otherwise) that worries me. The victim should "feel" harassed. In
    other words, somebody continues to do something to the victim, even
    after having been asked to stop, to the point where the victim feels
    harassed. That, to me, is harassment. There are other forms too.
    Obviously, blatant sexual overtones could constitute harassment.
    	What worries me is that everyone is so damned sensitive these days,
    seemingly looking for ways to be offended or feel harassed. It seems
    that if someone finds anything offensive or feels harassed, regardless
    of the cause, then they have a case...which I don't think is right.
    However, the techniques described in reply .1 seem reasonable, above
    board, and professional. The more trivial cases can be resolved by some
    straightforward discussion, and that's that. No need for Personnel or
    the Spanish Inquisition. Serious cases would warrant more serious
    action.
    	I'm kind of curious (and will probably regret asking this!) what
    others consider to be sexual harassment. Not that I'm worried about
    this :), but I'm wondering how anyone asks someone in the workplace out
    for a date without someone feeling sexually harassed? Inquiring minds
    want to know.

    Like a lot of things in this country, we have also gone over the
    edge on sexual harassment.  The combination of far too many super
    militant females and a whole sub-society of oversexed macho male
    types have created a situation in which the rest of the world
    sits back in amazement and simply laughs at us.
    
    Some level of friendly interaction between the sexes at work is
    absolutely normal.  This can even include flirting, or whatever is
    the equivalent these days.  For the life of me, I can't understand
    why a woman would feel put upon if a male co-worker were to complement
    her on her dress or hair or whatever.  Plenty of women have
    complemented me on my dress (when I was back east), and I didn't
    immediately translate it into an invitation to join her in the back
    seat of her car in the parking lot.
    
    We are absolutely doomed to more of the situation described by an
    earlier noter from the CSC.  Do we really want to get to the point
    where people don't talk to each other any more?  What's next??  All
    male or all female sites???  Of course then we'll instantly be
    dragged into court for discrimination.  This whole thing is really
    getting silly.
    
    Somehow we've got to get to the point where normal, tasteful, even
    playful interaction between the sexes doesn't instantly send someone
    running to personnel.  Personally, I'm glad I'm nearing the end of 
    my working life.  A whole of things aren't fun anymore.
                                                           

    IMHO, I don't believe a sincere honest compliment is out of line. 
    "That's a nice dress you have on." or "You look very nice today" or
    whatever. 
    
    However, I have had someone say to me "Gee I would like to see you in a
    wet Tee Shirt."  This to me is not an acceptable comment.  I did not
    turn him in to personnel however. Like malpractice lawsuits, I think
    sexual harrassment charges (to an extent) have just become another ruin
    someone, or make a buck or whatever.
    
    A comment like "You look healthy today" is a border line comment.  It
    could be taken a number of ways.   1) That you have a healthy glow
    about yourself.  2) That you look happy maybe or 3) you have big ta
    ta's.
    
    I think this sexual harrassment issue has been blown way out of
    porportion and in my opinion there are many women out there who tend to
    over react.  I think in alot of cases the women is just as much to
    blame as the man is.  You don't joke around with someone one time and
    the next time blow them in for harrassment.
    
    I do not envy men trying to make conversation with a woman these days, 
    or trying to treat them as equals (like so many of them wish to be 
    treated).  Speaking as a woman, I don't know what to tell you guys.  I
    suppose you just have to tread lightly at first until you learn what
    that particular person is made up of.  UGH!  Maybe we should all become
    monks.
    
    kc-sfh 

    	Does anyone remember the "girlwatchers" of the sixties?
    All those mini-skirts and fun-loving people who seemed to make
    good sport of watching girls?  Now the game is reversed in many
    ways since men can no longer get away with talking about (or
    in many ways even watching) women anymore, yet it seems quite
    acceptable for women to watch, talk about, even lust after men.

    	Take the popular TV show "Cheers" for example: in one recent
    episode, Carla's "beefcake" nephew came to work at Cheers bar for
    a few days, and the leading women actors of the bar spent the entire
    time dropping their purses so that they could drool at this guy's
    butt when he unknowingly bent over to pick it up.  Do you see any
    double standards in this?  It's ok - even cute - for women to lust
    after men, but definitely not ok for men to do the same to women.

    	This leads me to ask the question which has been rattling
    around in my head since I read the account of Ms. Mistovich (in
    note #1616.493), and that is when exactly does a compliment become
    an act of what women's groups have since termed "unwelcomed aggression"?

    	For example, let's suppose that instead of "tits" (obviously a
    safer choice of words for the same body part might have been "breasts",
    "chest", or even "lungs", but that's besides the point), that the
    manager had instead made a casual remark complimenting the womans legs?
    Would that be considered sexually harrassing as well, or are legs
    ok to compliment?  What about a cute face?  Is it harrassing to
    compliment a woman for that?  What about a nice hairdo?  Or a shapely
    figure?  How about a comment such as "Boy do you look healthy!"  Is
    this also harrassing?

	These are primarily rhetorical questions, and I'm sure everyone
    has a different opinion here, but the point is that however tacky,
    the manager's statement was most likely intended as a compliment.
    It's just that the compliment was interpreted as a come-on or an
    act of "unwelcomed aggression".  Perhaps the better question would
    be: when is such aggression ever welcomed?  Or is it ever welcomed?

    				    -davo
			     (reformed girlwatcher)

    I dealt with a real case when I worked in MKO several years ago.
    My boss lived about 80 miles from work.  So, he usually spent 3-4
    nights a week in a hotel in Merrimack.  
    
    I had two single, female professionals working for me.  The boss
    started asking them to have dinner with him in the evening.  I believe
    he was lonely, but mostly I think he thought that would be a good
    opportunity to get to know them better in a professional sense.
    
    They were very upset by this, and kept making excuses.  He kept
    asking.  Finally they came to me with their frustrations.  I told
    them that they must confront him, and simply tell him that this
    was not something they wanted to do.  They didn't feel that they
    could do that.
    
    Well, anyway, I finally approached the boss' secretary (who by the
    way played a role in that she also tryed to schedule these dinners),
    and told her that what was going on constituted sexual harassment,
    and was there someway that she could possibly get the boss to knock
    it off.  Well, you have never seen such an explosion on the part
    of the secretary.  She just thought what I said was terrible!  To
    her SH was something very overt, and not like the situation I
    described.  
    
    Anyway, the invitations stopped, and for some reason my standing with
    the boss rapidly went downhill.  It cost me a lot, but I think it was
    worth it.  To me it constituted sexual harassment for two reasons:
    
         1 - He kept it up after repeated refusals.
    
         2 - He never, never, asked any of the male employees in the
    group out to dinner.
    
    ...........to this day, I don't think he would understand that what he
    did was wrong.  He thought he was doing something special.
    
    Any comments?

    re: last
    
    First off, approaching your boss' secretary with this was totally
    inappropriate.  I'm not surprised she got upset.  And, having
    embarrassed your boss in front of his secretary (doubtless she told him
    what you said -- or at least her version of it), I'm not surprised that
    your standing with him dropped.
    
    Depending on the specific situation, either these women should have
    told your boss directly and specifically why they weren't interested in 
    having dinner with him, or you should have discussed it directly with him. 
    In your shoes, I would have simply told him that they had told you what
    was happening and that it made them uncomfortable.  
    
    While dinner meetings are common at a certain level of management, they
    are not a requirement.  All they had to do was tell him that they
    preferred not to do business during their evenings or that they
    preferred not to mix business and social relationships and events.
    
    re: previous notes that suggest that I was "oversensitive" in not
    accepting the statement about my body as a compliment, I don't believe
    I could accept such a statement from anybody as a compliment.  Also, I
    don't believe it was intended as a compliment.
    
    On the other hand, I do believe in dealing with other people's
    insensitivity and rudeness directly when they step over the lines of 
    civility, friendliness and kindness -- at least when its people I care
    about.  For example, I told the manager immediately (that is, as soon as 
    I recovered my speech) that I didn't know how I was going to be able to 
    work with him now, that I was embarrassed and humiliated.  I also avoided 
    meeting alone with him for some time after. 
    
    

    re: 15
    
    So, in essense, the boss two levels up from them was asking them out to
    dinner.  I am also assuming that these women didn't have much day to
    day contact and that his dinner invites were not within the context of
    some sort of established relationship.
    
    It is unfortunate that they couldn't have told him directly how his
    dinner invitations were being perceived.  It is also unfortunate that
    he didn't "get it" that repeated refusals were an indication of their
    discomfort.
    
    The only thing that I would change in how you handled this would be to
    have talked to your boss directly, rather than going through his
    secretary.  Maybe your boss reacted badly towards you because he felt
    embarrassed that you had discussed his behavior with his
    secretary...your discussed his behavior with a subordinate of his. 
    Given the delicate issues of power, etc., I can see why this would have
    upset him.
    
    Sounds to me like there ended up being three people negatively impacted
    by this...the two women and you.
    
    >>...........to this day, I don't think he would understand that what he
    >>did was wrong.  He thought he was doing something special.
    
    Which is why Mary Rowe strongly urges people sitting down and talking
    about the behavior.  It can bring clarity and understanding as to how
    all parties involved view the behavior.  
    

    re: .6
    
>    re: last What last week showed me was that a man can say anything he 
>    wants to a women and get away with it.
    
    Iff you believe Hill's account of what transpired.  Perhaps the
    Senators simply didn't believe the allegations against Thomas
    were true.

People have raised some interesting questions regarding what constitutes 
appropriate behavior in the work place vs. what constitutes harassment.

I think that a lot of issue has to do with context.  It is unreasonable to 
think that people in the work place will not form friendships, casual 
dating relationships, purely sexual relationships or love relationships.

However, context and intention have a lot to do with how the interactions 
are perceived.  People's personal experiences have a lot to do with how 
these interactions are perceived.

Consider this scenario:

Jane Doe and John Smith are meeting for the first time to discuss a 
cross-departmental project.  They have never met each other before and never 
had any contact with each other (no dialogs via mail or in notes).

Half-way through this very first business meeting, Jane says to John or 
John says to Jane:  "I find you extremely attractive and I want to have sex 
with you."

Given the context, would you find this appropriate behavior?

Consider this next scenario:

Jane Doe and John Smith have exchanged pleasantries in notes files and via 
e-mail.  They have had several opportunities to meet each other at non-work 
functions...like notes file parties and the ski trips that the ski club has 
organized.  They have shared some personal information about themselves...
John knows that Jane was widowed 3 years ago and Jane knows that John has 
never been married.  Both Jane and John have this feeling that maybe they 
are attracted to each other.  Finally, after several months of having an 
opportunity to develop a friendship where each one trusts the other, John 
asks Jane or Jane asks John to go out to dinner on a Saturday night.

Given the context, would you find this appropriate behavior?

In my mind, and I would suspect in the minds of most men and women, there 
is a vast difference between the two scenarios.  One scenario represents 
the first step into harassing behavior.  The other scenario represents 
reasonable and mutually consenting adult behavior.

I think context also applies to the questions that have been raised about 
making comments about peoples' clothing and hairstyle.  The comment may be 
perceived as absolutely fine when said within the context of an established 
relationship and the comment may be viewed as offensive if it comes from a 
total stranger.

There is also a vast difference between, "The color blue is very 
complimentary to you," vs. "hubba-bubba, those blue jeans sure let me know 
that you're well hung!"

I view sexual harassment as having its roots in the same sort of 
mind/spirit disturbance that fosters rape and child sexual abuse.  Please 
note that I am not saying that sexual harassment, rape and child sexual  
abuse are similar in the degree of damage they inflict on the victim.  However
there are similarities in the dymanic of power over and dominance acted out in 
sexually abusive/aggressive ways.
                                                                 

	Re -.1:

		1. That boss was out of line.

		2. That boss will never catch on as to why.

		3. As is axiomatic, you got screwed.

		QED

	Next time, let the women carry their own water; in my opinion it 
	is the only way to learn.  Comfort, concern, advice, role playing,
	and practice are OK and necessary, but to grow, one must handle 
	one's own battles.   Even if you lose some.
	
	
	MM

.20 refers to .15.

notes collision.

    re: .15
    
    I'm glad you managed to resolve the problem, but I think you might have
    suffered less if you had gone directly to the boss rather than to his
    secretary.
    
    I think it was .11 that mentioned my tactic for avoiding sexual
    harassment.  To avoid being offensive I wait until I know a woman
    fairly well before I dare to make any remark that could conceivably be
    considered outside the bounds of a formal, professional relationship.
    In many cases even an aquaintanceship of several years has not given
    me enough confidence in our relationship that I can "let down my
    guard", but that's OK---I am a fairly repressed person anyway, so this
    attitude comes naturally to me.
    
    To avoid being offended I simply don't take sexual suggestions
    seriously.  I was once approached by my boss' secretary: she invited me
    to join her in the rest room for some mutual pleasure one day when we
    had both come to work early.  She appeared serious, so I responded
    without laughing at her, but I assumed that she was only teasing me,
    and asked for a raincheck.  She never asked again, so I may have lost
    out, but I wasn't offended.
    
    (To avoid needless speculation, this incident happened in the early
    1970s, before I began work at DEC.  I was also considerably better
    looking then.)
        John Sauter

    re:  .18
    
    But don't you see, it doesn't matter whether or not Thomas did it.  All
    that matters if someone harrasses someone else is deny it.
    
    If the vote had gone the other way, the message to sexual harrassers
    would have been that they may end up paying for it with their careers. 
    
    And men would have walked around on tiptoe for a while, for fear of
    "oversensitive, militant" women damaging their careers.  Admittedly not
    fair, but then neither is it fair that I, for example, have had damage
    done to my career by men whom I refused to date (and this did happen to
    me back in my twenties).  Nor is it fair that I should have had to start
    working as a secretary when my education is equal to that of many men
    who started in "professional" positions.  Nor is it fair that even now,
    my salary lags by as much as 25-30% to that of men in similar
    positions.  And so on. 

    
    	re .15
    
    	You should have let the two ladies handle it themselves. And
    	the way they should have handled it was to just tell the guy
    	whatever it was that they felt that was inappropriate. For you
    	to label it as SH and then tell his secretary the same....well,
    	it certainly isn't the way I would've handled it. I probably 
    	wouldn't even have used the words SH if I would have chosen to
    	speak with him about it in private.
    
    	As some of the others have said, there are some very overly-
    	sensitive people out there. And some of them have their own
    	agenda which they will use any excuse to forward. The last time
    	I checked you had to be (at least physically) an adult to work
    	for DEC. So why not just use common sense and adult behavior:
    	if someone is doing/saying something that makes you uncomfortable,
    	then for goodness sakes TALK TO THEM ABOUT IT. And, depending on
    	the situation, you can suggest that personnel can help resolve it
    	if the two of you can't work it out.
    
    	I want to relate a story that happened that I'm familiar with.
    	There was a newhire Field Service young lady that was very well
    	built. She worked with a more senior FS tech to learn the ropes.
    	One morning she showed up at work with a set of bib overalls that
    	had a pair of leather hands on them that covered her breasts. The
    	tech that she was working with said, almost verbatim, "Uhh...I
    	just want to warn you that you're gonna get some comments on your
    	clothes today". In less than 30 minutes the senior tech was getting
    	his butt chewed out in Personnel.
    
    	Fair or unfair?
    
    	John

    re .24
    
    Unfair obviously, but that doesn't mean that everyone will see it the
    way I do.
    
    I participated in some dialog about what constitutes sexual harassment
    almost 15 years ago.  A (female) secretary distributed a long litany of
    behaviors which represented unfair male behavior towards women.  They
    were not labeled as sexual harassment on paper, but it became clear
    that the secretary did not distinguish between rude behavior and sexual
    harassment.  On examination of the list, not a single item was
    practiced solely by men towards women, but vice-versa, men to men, and
    women to women.  I became convinced that they were rude, inconsiderate,
    vulgar and exploitative behaviors no matter towards whom they were
    directed.  When I said so, I was verbally crucified by the said
    secretary.  I was also hotly defended by a more senior (female)
    secretary who, in my opinion, had seen a lot more real business
    behavior.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

All the attention that sexual harrassment has gotten lately has caused me
to remember incidents that happened with a former manager.  

She would constantly complain about how she couldn't advance any more in
the company becuase, as she said, and I am quoting verbatim, "I don't have 
a penis."  She would also tell me that I would get farther in my career than 
she had because I did.

I never considered these comments as "sexual harrassment".  Inappropriate,
yes.  Stupid, yes.  But not harrassing.  My tendency was to ignore them.

Would you consider that harrassment?

Would it be different if she had said that she couldn't advance any more in
the company because "I am a woman."??


What would I have considered harrassment?  If she had propositioned me, 
stated or implied that my next review would be affected in some way based 
on non-work issues, made comments about my body, etc.  But these things 
never happened.  

If a woman (or man, for that matter) boss or coworker asked me out one time, 
I would not consider it harrassment.  If they kept asking after being told
"no", then I would consider it harrassing.

Frank

    
    
    From the New York Times:
    
    Oklahoma State Representative Leonard E. Sullivan, Republican of
    Oklahoma City is seeking to have Prof. Anita Hill ousted from her tenured
    position.  In a letter to University president, Richard Van Horn, 
    Sullivan said, "We must get left wing extremist influence off the campus 
    before it spreads further.  We can't afford to have a high profile 
    professor on campus that millions of Americans, according to polls and 
    national talk shows, believe is a fantasizing liar."  [NYT 10/16/91 p.A21]
    

    re .23
    
>    But don't you see, it doesn't matter whether or not Thomas did it.  All
>    that matters if someone harrasses someone else is deny it.
    This is scary.
    You're saying that a mere accusation is cause enough to consider it
    truth? Assume for a minute the allegations are false. Is that fair
    to the accused?
    
>    If the vote had gone the other way, the message to sexual harrassers
>    would have been that they may end up paying for it with their careers. 
    
    And it would give a message to disgruntled employees they now have an
    easy method to get revenge against their employer/boss.
 
    John   

     >>       -< an update on the situation that sparked this topic >-
    
    Just a small nit... I started this topic because someone brought up the
    issue of sexual harassment in note 1616.493, which didn't seem the
    appropriate note in which to discuss the issue.  The comment made in
    1616.493 had nothing to do with the Thomas/Hill debate.

	re: .26: She was only telling the truth.  In a way perhaps to
	         explicit for some (graphically and politically), but 
		 none the less the truth.

		 MM, 
	     noted cynic

    re: last
    
    No, what I'm saying is that if he did do it, all he had to do is deny
    it.
    
    Its possible that the 52 senators who voted for Thomas believed that
    Hill was lying or psychotic.
    
    Its equally possible (and in light of the testimony I saw and heard
    of, in my mind likely) that the 52 senators that voted for Thomas
    figured something happened but that she was just an over-sensitive,
    emotional female who, if it bothered her at the time, should have just
    quit and found a job somewhere else.
    
    It proved to me that if it did happen, she made the right move --
    career-wise -- in keeping her mouth shut.  Because if she had reported
    it, her career would have ended before it started.
    
    I also should mention that the manager that I talked about in my
    previous notes was a peer, not a manager that I reported to.  If it had
    been my boss or more senior person, I would likely not have confronted
    him, for fear of retribution.

    The question was asked earlier and received no reply or discussion:
    
    How do you defend yourself if you are falsely accused of sexual
    harassment?
    
    And a somewhat related question:
    
    If A acuses B of sexual harassment and is found to be lying, is that
    grounds for some kind of harassment complaint by B against A?
    
    Have a GREAT day!
    Pete
    

    Re. what is the difference between a compliment and sexual harassment.
    
    Flirtation or a compliment comes from a certain level of warmth, affection,
    friendliness, a desire to make someone feel good about themselves.
    
    Sexual harassment comes from anger, a need to control, a need for
    power, a certain level of sadism.  
    
    It's not hard to tell the difference, even at the most subtle level.
    
    

    
>    No, what I'm saying is that if he did do it, all he had to do is deny
>    it.
    Perhaps if he did do it, he would have admitted it. Since we will never
    know if he did or not, we won't know how he would react.
    
>    Its possible that the 52 senators who voted for Thomas believed that
>    Hill was lying or psychotic.
    Or more likely it had nothing to do with what they believed, but
    more with what party they belong to, and whose endorsements they
    wish to maintain.
    
>    It proved to me that if it did happen, she made the right move --
>    career-wise -- in keeping her mouth shut.  Because if she had reported
>    it, her career would have ended before it started.
    Not to turn this into a Hill-Thomas debate, but she certainly wasn't
    forced to follow her harasser to another job, or to be repeatedly
    calling him, etc.
    Her case had holes in it, without a doubt.
                        
>    I also should mention that the manager that I talked about in my
>    previous notes was a peer, not a manager that I reported to.  If it had
>    been my boss or more senior person, I would likely not have confronted
>    him, for fear of retribution.
    But if he left your group, would you heave a sigh of relief and get
    on with your life, or try to stay as close as possible to him?
    
    John

.33,

>    ...anger, a need to control, a need for power, a certain level of sadism.  
 
    	These things come from whom?  The person alledgedly doing the
    sexual harassment, or the person alledging to be the victim of the
    sexual harassment?  As others have mentioned, these attributes could
    conceiveably be applied to either or even both parties, as the true
    "victim" could be either the accuser, the accusee, or some combination
    of the two when there are no witnesses or proof one way or the other.

    				    -davo

p.s.	Which way to the seminary?

I need to ask a question.  I keep reading that everyone who doesn't 
report the problem is afraid they will lose their job, held back, etc.
Has anyone considered that by not reporting the problem or at least
telling the person to get lost, they can still be effected in the same
way?  Do they actually believe that they are better off to keep quiet?
As soon as you keep quiet, you are giving the other person permission
and power to continue the behavior.  And they still might hold you back!

I have a problem with the number of people who say "I am a victim and can
do nothing about it".  If there is a problem, address it!  As someone 
earlier said, inform the person what you find objectionable.  If they
continue, document it and let them know that if they continue, you will
pursue outside help.  If this doesn't stop them, follow through and get
help.  That help can be the person's boss, legal avenues, a very large 
friend, whatever.

You will notice that I have specified no gender in the above.  Bullies
come in all forms.  Most back down when confronted.  And yes, some don't
and you have to fight.  But in corporate America today, the suggestion
that someone haresses other employees is very career limiting.

Your beliefs are worth fighting for.
Lee G.

    I just did a SHOW ENTRY to verify that this is DIGITAL, the conference
    for discussing the way we work here.

    The conference for discussion of politics, popular culture, and
    everything else is PEAR::SOAPBOX.  Hundreds of notes and replies on
    Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, sexual harassment, political correctness,
    and false accusations.

re .34:

>   Not to turn this into a Hill-Thomas debate, but she certainly wasn't
>    forced to follow her harasser to another job, or to be repeatedly
>    calling him, etc.

This comes up a lot in other discussions, so:

In some careers (academia and science come readily to mind), one highly placed 
person can seriously damage or even destroy someone's career even if they are 
not in the management chain or even in the same organization as that person.
Even if you don't like them, you'd better make damn sure they at least don't
dislike you.  (One interesting aside is that this also applies, at least 
according to some managers I've spoken to, to the process of becoming a 
Consulting Engineer at Digital - you are supposed to avoid offending certain
people whatever you might think of them...)

People (including many men I've known) will put up with quite a lot, even 
following a tyrannical or degrading manager to other positions, and
continuing to curry favor with them after they have parted company(ies),
if they think it will advance their careers.  So maybe you aren't FORCED to
follow someone or keep favorable contact with them - as long as you don't care
about career or advancement.

It's pretty simplistic to say "Well why didn't he/she just tell him/her to stop
it?".  Lot of people don't have that level of courage - especially when they are
still new in their careers, need the money, want to fit in with the gang, etc.

/Dave



  

    Re .15:
    
    Several people have said that when somebody says "no" to a request for
    a date, the requestor ought to stop asking, at least after several
    refusals.  However, look at what .15 said:
    
    > The boss started asking them to have dinner with him in the evening.
    > . . . They were very upset by this, and kept making excuses.  
    
    It doesn't say the subjects of the request said "no"; it says they made
    excuses -- e.g., "I'm busy" or "I'm too tired tonight".  An answer like
    that does not tell the requestor their requests are unwelcome.  Of
    course, it is true somebody higher in the management chain ought to be
    at least careful about asking anybody lower in the chain for a social
    engagement, but aside from that, we do not have enough information to
    conclude that the boss in this case had any way of knowing their
    requests were unwelcome.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .31:
    
    > No, what I'm saying is that if he did do it, all he had to do is deny
    > it.

    That conclusion is unwarranted.
    
    The senators did not just listen to Hill's accusation and then ask
    Thomas "Did you do it?".  The senators asked Hill and Thomas a number
    of questions.  They examined other evidence and listened to other
    people.  They considered information that tended to discredit Hill and
    they considered information that tended to support Hill.
    
    The conclusion from that is not that all the accused has to do is deny
    the accusation, but that if after all the evidence is considered, it
    does not seem like enough to conclude guilt in the minds of those doing
    the judging, then those doing the judging will not conclude guilt.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .40
    
    My understanding is that they cross-examined Hill for hours.  My 
    understanding is that they did *not* cross-examine Thomas.  I witnessed
    part of Hill's testimony (which appeared very credible to me).  I did
    not witness Thomas' statement (although my understanding is that he
    turned into a race issue).

    IMHO:
    
    From what I saw and heard of the testimony by Hill and by Thomas, there
    was no corroborating evidence, and absent that, there did not appear to
    be any evidence of a pattern by Thomas with others, and absent that,
    there did not appear to be anything negative done by Thomas to Hill in
    terms of career advancement (which I think might demonstrate his desire
    to exercise power over her).
    
    Clarence Thomas may well be the embodiment of a sexual harrasser,
    however the Judiciary Committee did not prove that to my satisfaction.
    
    Again, IMHO.
    
    Kevin

    re. .37  Good for you!!!
    
    Those of us out in the field read this topic to find out what is going
    on within our company.  Things like lay-offs, cars,
    promotions/demotions, etc.  We don't work in an environment where we
    are privy to this type of info on a day to day basis.  Your sexual
    preferences, religious preferences and personal priorities are better
    suited in another conference.  
    
    Moderator:  Has the guidelines of this conference changed??

    Re .41:
    
    > My understanding is that they cross-examined Hill for hours.  My 
    > understanding is that they did *not* cross-examine Thomas.
    
    The New York Times printed the opening statements of both Hill and
    Thomas and printed questions asked of each.  I do not know if they
    printed all the questions of each, but both Hill and Thomas were asked
    questions.  I'm not sure the hours involved are relevant; I watched the
    committee members spend ten minutes discussing among themselves whether
    or not a certain question could be asked according to the rules of the
    committee.  Given that, plus time for the answer, hours of questioning
    is only a few questions.
    
    Besides, consider what is being asked.  Person A says Q occured.  The
    obvious questions are:  Where did Q occur?  When?  How many times? 
    What are the details of Q?  Then suppose person B says Q did not occur. 
    What do you ask, where did it not occur, when did it not occur, how
    many times did it not occur?  How much can you ask a person about
    events they say did not happen?
    
    
    				-- edp

    I enjoyed the Thomas cross-examination by the honorable Senator from
    Alabama.  Went something like:
    
    Senator:  Well ...  we're just trying to get to the bottom of this.
    		Do you feel that she lost touch with reality?
    
    Thomas:  Blah, blah, blah ...
    
    Senator:  Well ...  we're just trying to get to the bottom of this.
    		Do you feel that she lost touch with reality?
    
    Thomas:  Blah, blah, blah ...
    
    Senator:  Well ...  we're just trying to get to the bottom of this.
    		Do you feel that she lost touch with reality?
    
    Thomas:  Blah, blah, blah ...
    
    On and on ...
    
    Steve

    
    
    	Another subject which may, or may not, be part of this discussion
    	that has not been brought out is the compliment obverse (remember
    	DECtape?) of sexual discrimination.  That being those that USE
    	sex for their own advancement within in organization.
    
    	Once again an unfair advantage, hard to prove, effective, etc.
    
      

    re: last
    
    Of course, the most unfair part of that is that if you're not terribly
    attractive, you don't have that tool at your disposal.

    
    
    re .47
    
    1) I'm not sure if that means if you are good-looking it's OK.
       Naw, must mean that it's just unfair not to be good-looking.  
      
    2) Then again, if the boss is a real bow wow!

    that works both ways....
    
    If you are accused of sexually harassing someone, my guess is your
    personal attractiveness will influence the jury, one way or another.
    
    Who ever said that life would be fair?  :-)
    
    Dick, who is balding, fat, and fifty-plus

    Kind of off the subject a bit, but Dave Barry in Sunday's paper was
    absolutely hysterical! (Dave Barry's view of the questions/comments put
    forth during the Thomas/Hill event.
    
    (Ted Kennedy with a bag over his head...I'm still laughing!)
    

    Hydra::dave_barry (but offline for a day or two....)
    
    I will post it here if I find the article...
    
    It will help us all laugh a bit....
    

			DAVE BARRY ON THOMAS

	CHAIRMAN BIDEN:  Judge Thomas, these past few days have been very,
	very hard for all of us -- especially for my good friend and
	colleague Sen. Kennedy, because it is not easy for a man to sit through
	three full days of hearings with a paper bag over his head -- but
	before we let you go, there is just one more point I want to make, and
	it is a very, very important point, and I fully intend to make it if
	I ever get to the end of this sentence, which as you know and I know,
	judge, is highly unlikely to occur during the current fiscal year,
	so...

	SEN. HATCH:  I want to say that I am disgusted.  These are disgusting
	things that we have been talking about here, and I am personally
	disgusted by them.  Pubic hair!  Big organs!  Disgusting.  And yet
	we must talk about them.  We must get to the bottom of this, no matter
	how disgusted we are, and believe me I am.  We must talk about these
	matters, the pubic hair and the big organs, HUGE organs, because it
	makes us sick, to think that these kinds of matters would come up --
	I refer here to the organs, and the hairs -- that we here in the
	United States Senate would find ourselves delving deeply into these
	matters, to be frank, totally disgusts me, both aspects of it, the
	hair aspect AND the organ...

	CHAIRMAN BIDEN:  Thank you.

	SEN. HEFLIN:  Judge Thomas, (30-second pause) I certainly appreciate
	(45-second pause) the fact (20-second pause) that (three-minute,
	20-second pause) my time is up.

	SEN. THURMOND:  Soamwhoan ben cudrin' mheah widm tan' bfust drang.

	TRANSLATOR:  He says, "Somebody has colored my hair with what appears
	to be Tang breakfast drink."

	CHAIRMAN BIDEN:  Thank you.  May I just add that on top of my own
	personal head appears to be an unsuccessful attempt to grow okra.
	But judge, as soon as I make this one final point we're going to let 
	you go, because this has been very, very painful, and believe me I
	know what pain is, because at one time in my career I was the son of 
	a Welsh coal miner, and let me just say, judge, that when I do make 
	this point, whatever it is, it will be something that I believe in 
	very, very deeply, because I am the chairman, and I can talk as long 
	as I want, using an infinite number of dependent clauses, and nobody 
	can stop me.

	SEN. HATCH:  How BIG an organ?  How MANY pubic hairs?  These are the
	issues that we need to probe deeply into, no matter how much they
	disgust us!  And believe me, nobody is more disgusted than I am!  I
	am revolted that we are thinking about these things, day and night!
	Tossing and turning, trying to sleep, writhing, moaning and...

	SEN. KENNEDY (from under his bag): Are the cameras still here?

    

    Interesting what one paper will cut out of Dave Barry!
    
    The Albuquerque Journal version (what can I say?) excluded the mentions
    of organs and pubic hair...
    
    But it DID include this at the end:
    
    WOULD THE LAST PERSON TO LEAVE TELL STROM IT'S OVER?
    
    CHAIRMAN BIDEN:  Judge, we know you're tired, and we're going to let
    you go in just a moment here, just as soon as I make this one point...
    
    SEN THURMOND:  Deah wheah etn lonsh yep?
    
    TRANSLATOR:	He says. "Did we eat lunch yet?"
    
    

    Why do we need new laws for sexual harassment? If extortion is
    involved(ie give sex to keep your job or advance) there are laws to
    deal with that. Is being an ill mannered brute a crime? Are some lady's
    feelings of more value than someones' career? If someone makes fellow
    employees "uncomfortable" they certainly aren't doing what's best for
    the company, themselves or their teammates, but prosecute them? On the
    other hand some women have been sexually harassing men for years. The
    problem is most men like it. 
    	But, I guess other societies have made bad manners illegal. Whats a
     deadly social gaff in one crowd is another's senate hearing.
    	The real problem is that we are having trouble dealing the
    consequences of our sexual morality. We imply that you can have sex
    with anyone you can get to go along, then find a lot of people aren't
    happy about that.
       Where does it all end? Shall we outlaw religious harassment as
    well? 	
    	
          john

    .54
    
    <<Shall we outlaw religious harassment as well>>
    
    I thought they already had.
    
    To really understand a woman's point of view on this subject it must be 
    remembered that men do not face the same daily dangers that woman do.  
    
    We are mostly weaker than men and have little physical ability to 
    effectively defend ourselves from attack.  A women is in more danger of 
    being killed by their husbands (this weeks multiple murder in New Hampshire
    is a good example) or boyfriends, than the reverse. The criminal element 
    considers that if a women is the only occupant of a house that house is
    as good as empty (the women is no match/bother to them).  Women are
    more likely to be beaten, mugged or raped by men.  Woman routinly 
    receive inferior medical care (mostly from male doctors)--for example, if 
    1 in 9 men in America lost a testicle to cancer it would be considered an 
    epidemic and mega goverment bucks would be spent on research, however, 1 
    in 9 women losing a breast to cancer gets very little notice and even less 
    money for research. 
    
    Just remember, it's not so long ago that women were not allowed to
    vote, did not have custody of their own children, and in some
    professions were not allowed to work after marriage.  None of this
    changed until laws were enacted to correct these injustices.
    
    
    How's that old saying go?  Something about "walking a mile in my shoes".

    
    Just a side note:  don't forget that men can suffer sexual harrassment;
    it's not just women who fall victim.  Remember the criteria of "power"
    in the sexual harrassment definition.  If a woman has organizational
    power over a man (in terms of hiring, firing, promoting, etc.), sex can
    be used as a weapon.
    
    I'm sure this is common knowledge, but so many replies are talking
    about how women are the weaker sex, etc., that I thought I'd bring it
    up.  This isn't just a women's problem; it's a HUMAN problem, suffered
    by many.
    

    To reinforce the message in Reply .55, a female coworker once told me
    that statistically speaking, the greatest occupational danger facing
    the average woman in the workplace was being murdered by a coworker. 
    Believe it or not, as you wish; I found it hard to believe.  (I think
    *my* gravest danger is paper cuts...)  But it does give one pause.

RE:     <<< Note 1636.57 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve Jong/T and N Publications" >>>
 
>    that statistically speaking, the greatest occupational danger facing
>    the average woman in the workplace was being murdered by a coworker. 

Close, but no cigar.  The greatest danger to a working woman is being murdered 
by a non-coworker, usually during a retail holdup.  (OSHA, and DoJ UCR's)

thomas

re .57:

That may be true if "danger" means death.  After all, most people in jobs
with a high likelyhood of death (firefighters, police, soldiers) are men.
But if danger includes injuries, women are a lot more likely to get CTS
than to be murdered by coworkers.

    Before everybody starts pitying the plight of women who must fear death
    around every corner, let us consider one important fact.  Life
    expectancy, in the United States at least, is greater for women than
    men.  This includes deaths from ALL causes -- medical, accidental,
    killing, et cetera.  When all the factors are included, it is men who
    more often die sooner, not women.  While there are many injustices for
    women in this world, increased risk of death is not one of them.
                                      
    
    				-- edp

re .60:

However, having their fears belittled is...

re about 57-60:

Just looking at causes of death for women is, in my opinion, similar to saying
"There are 10 grains of sand on the beach at Kailua."  A statement that is both
true, and extremely incomplete to the point of being misleading.

By that measure, the KKK and lynchings were not a problem for blacks or Jews 
in the South, because STATISTICALLY, other causes of death were much more
prevalent.  Statistics don't do much to reassure me in these cases, because 
my fears (and, I think, those of many others), have little to do with the
slippery and abstract concepts of statistics, and much more to do with direct
and personal experience.

/Dave

    re.60
    Fact is ::EDP that the fear of those women is *real* and has sod all to
    do with life expectancy.
    Now, what topic can be discussed without you opposing everything that's
    said?
    Maybe the fear of the all white heterosexual male that he has to take
    into account that there other people on this world as well?
    
    Charles

EDP,

I find you logic somewhat flawed. You imply that the because women live, in the
aggregate, statistically, longer than men, that the specific causes of increased
risk of death to women are not worthy of study, address, or preventative action.

Horse Hockey! Just because a woman accrues less risk per day than you for the 
"death by old age" operator, doesn't mean you have any ethical justification to
ignore her "death by robber of the mini-mart" risk operator.

You may have some small argument in favor of, when discussing group funding of
public health care research, weighting male geriatrics heavier than female. You
certainly have no justification, because you genes dictate a shorter lifespan,
to scoff at a real workplace danger to women, and a discussion of how to lower
such risk.

thomas

P.S. How does all of this relate to Sexual Harassment? My wife was fired from a
mini-mart job for refusing to date the manager. That manager, as most do, pref-
erentially assigned female employess to the evening shift. The evening shift is,
statistically speaking, the most dangerous one. Stats also support (but do not 
prove, nothing is ever PROVEN by stats) the hypothesis that male clerks a less
likely to be assaulted than female clerks.

    Re .61:
    
    > However, having their fears belittled is...
    
    This is an example of a Politically Correct statement.  According to
    the Politically Correct view, we are supposed to accept certain
    people's fears as the final arbiter of what is right, even though those
    fears run in the face of fact.  This principle places the favored
    groups' prejudices above the facts of the world.  It is discrimination
    against the unfavored groups.
    
    Politically Correct groups ought to receive no special favors.  Their
    fears ought not be given precedence over truth.  When their fears are
    unfounded, the best course of action is to educate them with the truth,
    not to put blinders on and ignore the actual state of the world.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .62:
    
    > Fact is ::EDP that the fear of those women is *real* and has sod all to
    > do with life expectancy.

    Oh, there is no doubt that the fear of _some_ women is real.  And
    surely it has "sod all" to do with life expectancy.
    
    But what can be done about this?  Can their fears be assuaged by
    improving their social situation?  No, that is not the answer, because
    their ACTUAL risk of death is ALREADY less than that of men.  Their
    fear is not based on the actual situation, so changing the situation
    will not cure their fear.
    
    The only cure for a fear of a thing that is unreal is to learn that it
    is unreal.  Change belief to match reality; do not ignore reality.
    
    The line of reasoning presented above is amusing though.  The fear of
    those women is real, so we are supposed to respect it, value it, and
    even act to accommodate it.  But who can deny that the fear of some
    people for homosexuals is real, even if their beliefs are, like
    women's, not based on reality?  What reason is there that women's false
    belief should be respected and other people's false belief should not?
    The answer is, of course, that women are one of the favored groups. 
    They are Politically Correct, and therefore they get more favors.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .63:
    
    > I find you logic somewhat flawed. You imply that the because women
    > live, in the aggregate, statistically, longer than men, that the
    > specific causes of increased risk of death to women are not worthy of
    > study, address, or preventative action.
    
    I did not say that.  I did not say the causes of death, to anybody, are
    not worthy of study.  I said that women do not have an increased risk
    of death.  What you said above does not follow from that in any way.
    
    But what you said is Politically Correct, and it is Politically Correct
    to falsely accuse me of attacking principles I did not attack.
    
    Note for a viewers playing at home:  The fact that women live longer
    than men on average is not Politically Correct.  Deduct 10 points if
    you allowed fact to sway your judgement.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .64:
    
    > Excuse me, but please explain the difference between "life expectancy"
    > and the probability of dying from unexpected causes?    I believe your
    > use of the terms is suspect if not totally incorrect.
    
    I did not use the term "unexpected causes".  To what are you referring?
    
    The cumulative risk to women's lives from ALL causes, including murder,
    accident, cancer, is less than the cumulative risk to men's lives. 
    There could be specific ages during which a woman is more likely to die
    than a man, but there are times when a man is more likely to die than a
    woman, and the latter outweigh the former.
    
    If you are hinting at some "expected causes" of death, I do not know
    what you are referring to.  I suppose you are thinking of counting only
    the "bad" things that happen to women and saying that those risks are
    greater than for men.  But I hardly think you will find many men to
    agree that the causes of death that you have not identified as "bad"
    are in fact not bad -- most people are going to give death a pretty
    grim view.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .65
    
    >" we are supposed to accept certain people's fears as the final arbiter
    > of what is right, even though those fears run in the face of fact" 
     
    >" This principle places the favored groups' prejudices above
    > the facts of the world". 
    
    >"Their fears ought not be given precedence over truth."  
     
    >"the best course of action is to educate them with the truth,
    >    not to put blinders on and ignore the actual state of the world."
    
    -edp, I would like your opinion. Who should define "truth"? Whose
    interpretation of "the facts of the world", or "the actual state of 
    the world" should we use? And, finally, what SHOULD be the "final 
    arbiter of what is right"?
    
    Please don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, or to 
    put you down. What I am trying to do is understand your point of view.
    
     
    Greg            

    re .65:
    
    >> However, having their fears belittled is...
    
    >This is an example of a Politically Correct statement.  ...
    
    Also a fine example of starting with a label, then proceeding to define
    what the label means, then acting as if your meaning were to only one,
    then concluding in an artful flourish of triumph.  Nicely done, Eric.
    Quite a tract to spin from my single statement of opinion, into which
    you read considerably more than than was there - but you are a master
    of that.
    
    >Politically Correct groups ought to receive no special favors.  Their
    >fears ought not be given precedence over truth.  When their fears are
    >unfounded, the best course of action is to educate them with the truth,
    >not to put blinders on and ignore the actual state of the world.
    
    To extrapolate from the unsaid, this obviously means that politically 
    INCORRECT groups ARE allowed to receive special favors, their fears are 
    allowed to take precedence over truth, and they should be allowed to
    continue in blissful ignorance?
    
    Nice try though.
    
    /Dave

    Re .69:
    
    > -edp, I would like your opinion. Who should define "truth"?
    
    This is a rathole, but because you are asking a philosophical question,
    I must take care in the answer.  So please forgive the precision, but
    when you place "truth" in quotation marks like that, it is usually
    referring to the word, not the meaning.  The word "truth", like other
    English words, receives its definition from the manner or manners in
    which people use it.  A prescription for or description of its use can
    be found in a dictionary.
    
    Quite possibly, you meant to ask who should define truth?  This
    questions asks about truth (actuality, reality), rather than about the
    word.  The answer to this question is that truth is not defined, at
    least not by any person.  Perhaps one might say nature defines truth. 
    People only discover truth.
    
    This question is irrelevant at this point, because nobody has disputed
    that life expectancy is longer for women than men, at least in the
    United States and probably many other places.  This information can be
    obtained in the reference section at many libraries.  For the
    particular fact of life expectancy, it is discovered through a process
    of reporting deaths, causes, and ages, counting the reports, and
    computing the average ages of death.
    
    The computation itself is actually somewhat complicated.  One cannot
    simply average the ages reported in recent years, because it does not
    include people who have not died yet, so their ultimate ages of death
    are not included.  Still, we can obtain what the life expectancies WERE
    for people who were born some time ago, and we can use models to
    estimate, probably accurately, what life expectancies are for people
    who are still around to be concerned about it.
    
    As I said, I do not think there is any dispute about the fact that
    women live longer than men.  If there were a dispute, it would be
    resolved by examining the evidence and/or by testing the disputed
    models against reality, to see which one matched more accurately. 
    Reality determines truth, so the model that matches reality more
    closely is the one that is better.
    
    I hope I have answered your question.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .70:
    
    > To extrapolate from the unsaid, this obviously means that politically 
    > INCORRECT groups ARE allowed to receive special favors, . . .
    
    That is an incorrect extrapolation.  Currently, we have the Politically
    Correct granted greater favors than the Incorrect.  We might represent
    this by saying that C, the favors granted to the PC, are greater than
    I, the favors granted to the Incorrect.  Symbollically, C > I.  You
    have "extrapolated" that changing that means C < I.  But that is
    incorrect; there is a third alternative.  It is C = I.
    
    Nobody should be given special favors.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .72:
    
    To be completely nitty, Eric, it was ONE possible extrapolation.  It may
    not have been the one you meant.  As you have so eloquently pointed
    out, there ARE three alternatives.  I just, following pretty much in
    your tradition, picked the one I wanted to build my argument on.
    
    >    Nobody should be given special favors.
    
    I try to avoid absolutes - they are rarely true when discussing human
    beings.
    
    /Dave

    Does anyone dispute the statement that the leading cause of death among
    working women is murder?

    Oh my - yet ANOTHER TOPIC that has been ratholed with the same
    old 'PC' labeling and stereotyping, I see.
    
    		<some statement> is 'PC'.
    		'PC' is BAD!
    
    		therefore: 
                   <some statement> is BAD!
    
    I had no idea the well was this dry.
    

    Well, before this diversion of a sidebar gets totally ratholed, I want
    to be sure that the point I made is clear and undisputed.  I don't want
    to be the one who provided the spark for another crusade.

    
    
    I guess you're not gonna listen to me... you're all gonna continue
    to bicker with Eric like you really think you're gonna make progress.
    
    I'm out'ah here!
    

    Re. 76 Suzanne.
    
    >		<some statement> is 'PC'.
    >		'PC' is BAD!
    >
    >		therefore: 
    >               <some statement> is BAD!
    
    Well, I suppose it'll work that way and this is the base reason for it,
    in my opinion. Say, we have this white male middle-class individual,
    who basically is part of the most priviliged group in the western part
    of the world, and he's seeking to keep his 'supremacy' over all he
    finds disgusting, women, blacks, homosexuals, whatever. Now these days,
    rallying against those groups is somewhat frowned upon especially in
    light of the Declaration of Human Rights, or, in your case, the
    Constitution and the Amendments. 
    
    Now consider this trick: what if you would continuously pose as a
    strong defender of that Constitution, the Right of Free Speech etc.
    This will make you look all but an unreasonable person because we all
    think that you're defending the general rights we've agreed upon should
    be available to all people. With this posture in hand, you now start to
    seek out specific groups not to your liking, and you start to attack
    them on petty arguments that can, helped by a little fantasy, be traced
    back of possibly being in mild violation with one of those Rights. The
    only thing you need to do is make enough noise, so that the discussions
    get derailed and be made impossible.
    
    Now, without publicly denying them the right to free speech - which you
    actually are seeking to do - you HAVE succeeded in your goal to make
    their further discussion and free speech impossible, without ever
    being in danger of being looked upon as someone who is looking to
    undermine those minorities' legal rights, since you're such a strong
    advocate of those rights in the first place. 
    
    Using labels as 'PC' (whatever that may be) only strengthens your
    arguments, because it connects a whole group to the exponants of that
    group, which further helps in devaluing their arguments and character.
    
    It's all very clever, very well thought out, and extremely hard to
    catch. Not dry at all, I'd say.
    
    Ad

    RE: .80  Ad
    
    Interesting analysis, Ad!
    
    Meanwhile, sexual harassment won't be discussed in this topic.  
    
    Oh well.

    Hey Ad!
    
    That's VERY good. Reminds me of someone.....  I hadn't thought it
    through like that, but yes, I see what you're saying.
    
    Just back to the topic for a while, I still fail to see what
    life-expectancy has to do with sexual harassment, or womens' fear of
    hurt and harm. Since you brought it up, would you explain it to me
    please EDP?
    
    Please don't ignore this note as well, your ill-manners are becoming
    tiresome.
    
    Laurie.

    Re .73:
    
    I apologize, but you are not making yourself clear.  What difficulty do
    you have with the statement, "This includes deaths from ALL causes --
    medical, accidental, killing, et cetera."?  I referred to death by all
    causes; why are you describing this as "unexpected causes"?  Could you
    please give me an example of what you would mean by an expected cause?
    
    > I present then what you wrote in .60 was to say the average woman on
    > the street has less to worry about because the statistics say she will
    > live longer.  I just don't think that's entirely accurate, not by a
    > long shot.

    If you do not think that statement is accurate, please present a
    statement you do think is accurate.  Also, please tell me how a person
    can have a longer life expectancy if there is not less likelihood that
    they will die before reaching an old age!
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .75:
    
    I certainly challenge the statement; I would like to see a source.  I
    suspect that at the least, the statement must be qualified in some way,
    such as "at the workplace".
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .80:
    
    > . . . he's seeking to keep his 'supremacy' over all he finds
    > disgusting, women, blacks, homosexuals, whatever.
    
    Here we see an ad hominem argument, one that attacks the person rather
    than the argument.  I am most assuredly more a member of minority
    aspects of society than the majority.  (But the Valuing Differences
    program is such a farce that it cannot recognize anybody who is not
    part of its list of special groups.)  Further, I do not find women,
    blacks, or homosexuals disgusting, nor do I find equal opportunity for
    these groups to be undesirable.
    
    Yet it is convenient for you to cast me in the light, so you do so, in
    spite of the fact that it is untrue.
    
    
    				-- edp

    EDP,
    
    You still haven't answered my question re: life expectancy and sexual
    harassment.
    
    Regards, Laurie.

    Maybe we could get back to the original purpose of this topic...a
    discussion of practical and reasonable actions to take when one is
    confronted with sexual harassment in the workplace.  I find it
    interesting that the original article addressed the issue as being a
    real problem for both men and women, and yet, the topic has degenerated
    into a rathole about life expectancy in men and women.
    
    Is this rathole a reflection that we (collective we) do not take this
    topic seriously or do not believe that this is a problem for people in
    the workplace?  
    
    Maybe it would be appropriate to have philosophical discussion rathole
    topic where all those who want to argue semantics could do so. 
    However, can we please get this topic back on track?

    re .-1
    You're right, but I have one nagging question (sorry).
    Does that fact that women overall live longer than men really mean
    anything? I say no. The reason for this is that the grouping is far
    to broad. Insurance companies make their livelyhood determining if
    a client will be a good risk. Do they merely use gender as a guide?
    Of course not. They use countless other factors, and then base their
    decision on all of them.
    As such, why should individuals be satisfied with such an unreliable
    statistical conclusion?
    
    John

    I was driving home from work one day last week - I think it was
    Thursday - listening to the radio.  I believe it was NPR, but it could
    have been Pacifica News, mentioned that the so-called "grassroots"
    offensive against the "Politically Correct" was claiming that these
    "Special Interest Groups" were merely disguising a blatant attempt to
    get "special privileges" for their own minority constituents at a hefty
    cost to the greater majority.
    
    One of the leading figures in this anti-PC campaign, and one of its
    most vocal spokespersons was currently a republican candidate for
    governor of Louisiana, and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan,
    David Duke.
    
    Reminds me of the old saying about sleeping with dogs and waking up
    with fleas.  EDP, how's that itch? ;-)
    
    tim
    

    re: -1
    
    Lest anyone actually think they aspire to impartiality, a recurring tactic 
    used by NPR is to subtly discredit ideas they disagree with by carefully 
    selecting disagreeable respresentatives to include in their coverage,
    such as David Duke or Lester Maddox.
    
    One of my favorite COOKIES: "An idea is not responsible for those who
    believe in it."
    
    Al
    

    Like I said, I'm not sure if it was NPR or Pacifica.  I listen to both.
    
    I just thought it was interesting to point out one of the 'leaders' of
    this movement.  I would be interested if other notables, say, Jessie
    Helms, Strom Thurmon, or any of the others from the Who's Who of
    Rednecks agrees.  Hey, let's call Jim Bakker up in prison and see what he
    thinks!  I'm not saying the whole idea stinks - just it's leaders! ;-)
    After all, I'm not going to worry until these guys start showing up
    wearing sheets when it ain't Halloween any more!
    
    It's the same kind of labelling and fear tactics that the Nazis are so
    fond of, not to mention the late Joe McCarthy.  Give them a label,
    attribute a material threat to that label, thereby engendering fear in
    the heretofore uninformed public, and then, with flag held high and
    adrenaline flowing freely from a healthy dose of fight-or-flight
    response, storm the walls of injustice with the righteous (dare I say
    'Moral') Majority at your heels.
    
    I'm expecting an anti-PC cross burning in my honor any time now. ;-)
    
    tim
    

    Remember that the very idea that PCness exists is anti-PC.

	If I was subject to sexual harrassement, then I believe the quickest
	and easiset way to stop it would be to catch it right at the start, and
	nip it in the bud as soon as it starts to be offensive.

	This is the only way to do it, because what is harassement to one 
	person may be acceptable behaviour to another. The line is rather wide
	and wavy.
	If you allow it to go on, then the harrasser may be encouraged to 
	continue, not realising that they had offended, and once past that, it
	may become more uncomforatble, and more difficult to get anything done.

	Tell the person in no uncertain terms that they have overstepped the 
	mark.

	If it continues, be blunt, and tell them you will escalate the issue
	if they continue.

	If it still continues, escalate, telling of the times and situations,
	and that you requested them to stop.

	Do it yourself, don't expect others to do it for you.

	Heather

	

    You have to make sure YOU know what offends you.  I have known people
    who want to pretend the problem doesn't exist until it really burns
    them badly.  By then its too late.  You must think about the
    disagreeable before it begins to happen.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

32FAR::LERVIN, 

Thanks for the nudge.

Back to my wife's story.  One of the subtle, and, therefore, unassailable "male
dominance" techniques was "hoops."  This was the practice of taking three WORK
HOURS on thursdays for a game of basketball at the MENS health club next door
to the large, prestigious financial institution which employed her and them.
One had to be "officer grade" to recieve the tacit dispensation to attend.
Most of the fast-track, mid level management did so, reviewing staff stuff,
account stuff, etc in the locker room and on the court.  Great bonding and 
career advancement move.  Women, including Lisa, were definitely on the 
outside.

Putting our heads together, we discovered some things:
 o Most of the REALLY big wigs ride and shoot (hoops/golf are for plebians)
 o Most of the REALLY big wigs (in Philly) are old Americana families
 o Lisa is ninth generation American
 o Lisa is (pop! goes my ego) a better shot than me
 o A trap/skeet gun is a wise investment

And lo!  All of those chairmen and executives love to give personalized lessons
to up-and-coming shooters.

Now, I am not just advocating something that should be over in LOSER::FIREARMS.

I'm advocating PLAYING THE GAME. There are lots of people (lots of whom are 
men) who make their careers move along by cultivating personal relationships in 
ways like this.  Find some.  Especially some that can have virtually no chance
of being misconstrued as anything other than a meeting for a shared interest.
Then develop them, and you will have a sympathetic ear for your genuine 
complaints.

Being proactive can work to anyone's advantage.

thomas

Heard this on the radio this morning:

<individual's name which I forgot>, the sheriff of Frederick County, Virginia
doesn't kiss babies...or even women. But his deputies are complaining that he
is humiliating them in public by kissing them on the cheek or ear. 

(I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that since the story said he doesn't even
kiss women, these are male deputies complaining.) 

Now, is this sexual harassment?  Odd behavior?  Innocent?

If it were to be termed sexual harassment (notice the story said the deputies 
claimed they were being humiliated in public, not sexually harassed), would 
not armed deputies with all their training be capable of stopping the 
behavior?  Would the sheriff have to be gay in order for this to be considered 
sexual harassment?

Have the deputies carefully avoided using the term sexual harassment, because:

1) it would create too much heat for them from the sheriff?
2) they don't want to be seen as the object of gay affections (construction 
   workers in the area are reported to be blowing kisses to the deputies)?

I heard this three second blip on the radio and have been asking myself all
kinds of questions this morning.

                         -< What would you call this? >-

	Different, that's for sure.

| Would the sheriff have to be gay in order for this to be considered 
| sexual harassment?

	Good question. I wouldn't think he would have to be gay to have this
considered sexual harrasment. 

| Have the deputies carefully avoided using the term sexual harassment, because:

| 1) it would create too much heat for them from the sheriff?

	In what way? Do you mean how people would talk about it? How supporters
for the sheriff might get upset and screw them over in public? 

| 2) they don't want to be seen as the object of gay affections (construction 
   workers in the area are reported to be blowing kisses to the deputies)?

	Are you saying that the construction workers ARE blowing kisses or are
you using this as an example to show what might be happening?




Glen

re: .97,

    	Maybe the Sherrif is from some country other than the [homophobic]
    U.S. of A. where a kiss on the cheek from one man to another is
    considered a plain old honor and/or a greeting instead of gay love.
    
    				   -davo

>	Different, that's for sure.

But very good for the sake of argument, if in fact, the deputies were being 
sexually harassed.  If armed men were (are) afraid to acuse the superior of
SH, what would that say to the courts about the validity of such claims? 

On the other had, SH is not committed in public, nor with witnesses (in most 
cases), so this does not seem to fit the pattern.  I wonder if this guy is 
married and kisses his sons but not his wife or daughters.

> I wouldn't think he would have to be gay to have this considered sexual
> harrasment. 

If he is not gay or bisexual (sorry, I neglected to include that originally),
then how could it be construed to be SH?  Odd behavior, yes. Innocent?  I
don't know. 

>	In what way? Do you mean how people would talk about it? How supporters
> for the sheriff might get upset and screw them over in public? 

The perception the sheriff might have, and thus his reaction to, charges of 
SH, vs. "He's a strange bird."  He could laugh off the latter, but the former 
would be a different matter.

| 2) they don't want to be seen as the object of gay affections (construction 
|   workers in the area are reported to be blowing kisses to the deputies)?

I did not hear this part on the radio.  I heard the brief paragraph which I 
posted (factually accurate, but paraphrased from my recollection of a report I
had heard hours earlier).  I was discussing this with a couple of colleagues, 
and one added the part about the construction workers, the other recalled 
hearing/reading this report.  Both had read the Washington Post this morning 
(I don't subscribe) and seemed fairly familiar with the story, but apparently 
had not been following this note.  I feel the sources are as accurate as the 
media from which they received the information, so I tend to believe the 
story.

Re: .99

His name was something like Studyvessant (phonetic), but I don't know that a 
sheriff in Frederick, VA would be anything but a good old boy.  Could be wrong 
though.  If this is his (SUCCESSFUL) defense, then pinching of the female
derriere by Italian/French men should be allowed.  And given the French Prime 
Minister's statements, I guess all het males are considered open season in the
U.S. for French females :-)  Parlez vous Francais, mademoiselle?  Does that 
mean a French female may act out some of the statements France's PM has made 
regarding British/US gay males?

I have to get a law degree so that I get some compensation for asking myself 
all these questions.  In the course of writing this, I could have charged 
several clients :-{

Steve

    re: The sheriff
    
    I heard about this on the radio.
    
    Yes, construction workers are blowing kisses to the deputies (and they
    DON'T like it!).
    
    He also has "LOVE" and "HATE" written across the knuckles of his hands.
    If that's a European custom, then it's a new one on me!  8^}
    
    Sounds like "good ol' boy" material to me!
    
    -- Russ

.101:

>    He also has "LOVE" and "HATE" written across the knuckles of his hands.
>    If that's a European custom, then it's a new one on me!  8^}

What *was* that movie with the psycho preacher who had LOVE and HATE
written on his knuckles?  Lillian Gish and Peter Graves (then a child)
had roles in it, but I can't think of the name of the actor who played
the preacher.  Beautiful film.

    Robert Mitchum played the preacher in this GREAT movie.  I can't
    remember the title -- I believe it had the word "night" in it, and I
    keep coming back to Heat of the Night, with Rod Steiger, but that's not
    the one.  It was black & white, and released in the late 50s or earyl
    60s.

	"The Night of the Hunter"
--Mike

.103 and .104 are correct.  It was "Night of the Hunter" with Robert Mitchum.
This *is* the TRIVIA conference, isn't it?

    I have had just about enough of EDP's logic...
    
    NO ONE deserves to be "sexually harassed" at work or anywhere else.
    Statistics be dammed.... I do not know where EDPs head is, but from
    this point forward, I (personally) will "NEXT UNSEEN" any replies from
    that person (who ever he/she is).
    
    Absolutely the worst attitude I have ever witnessed..!! It would seem
    to me that this person would be a person one should be very careful in
    dealing with.... It seems he would condone any such actions as they
    pertain to this subject matter...!!
    
    Where is my NEXT UNSEEN key..????
    
    Bob G.
    

    Anent .107: Bob, please!  That was uncalled for.
    
    I am unable to document my factoid from my own sources, except to say
    I've been told it twice now by different people under different
    circumstances.  The second time was in this topic, and the Noter cited
    a source.  I think that will have to do.
    
    Assuming the point is true, it only makes a small point: that women
    in the workplace have good reason to be concerned not just for their
    careers but their well-being.  Whether they're even aware of the
    statistic or not (even assuming it's true), women are cautious.
    
    But it's a grand rathole anyway.  This is not a topic about why women
    charge harassment; it's about defense against the charge.

    RE: .108  Steve Jong
    
    > But it's a grand rathole anyway.  This is not a topic about why women
    > charge harassment; it's about defense against the charge.
    
    Not according to the basenote, it's not:
    
    .0> The next reply contains a fairly lengthy article written by Mary P.
    .0> Rowe regarding the nature of sexual harassment and how people can
    .0> defend themselves against it, along with suggestions for documenting
    .0> incidents and confronting the offender.
    
    Anyone (man or woman) can be the target of sexual harassment, even
    though most SH incidents seem to happen to women.
    
    This topic is about how to defend against sexual harassment itself.

    If I knew how to bring a note from one conference to another I would 
    insert said note here.  If someone can do this, great.
    
    Just read a note in WOMANNOTES about an harrassment suit being filed
    by a DEC secretary against Digital and a manager.  Said manager had
    a 7-foot leather whip in his office.  He would take said whip and
    crack it as he walked around the area.  The secretary claims that
    once he cracked the whip on her ankle.  To me that's not sexual
    harassament but assault and battery!!!
    
    Linda
    

re .-1

Go to conference #1, read the note in question, then EXTRACT FOO.TMP (where
FOO.TMP can be any filename you care you use).   

Go to conference #2, and position yourself at the note to which
you're transferring the info, and REPLY FOO.TMP

Courtesy requires that you be certain that cross-posting is
likely to be acceptable to the original author.  DEC policy allows
cross-posting except where the source is a members-only notesfile,
but politeness never hurts!

    Re .107:
    
    What on Earth would lead you to think that I have indicated in any way
    that sexual harassment is even acceptable, let alone "deserved"?  My
    comment was simply that claims that threats to women's lives exceed
    men's are unwarranted.
    
    What we have here is one more example of Political Correctness:  Say
    ANYTHING criticizing claims for a favored group, and you are accused of
    attacking the group.
    
    
    				-- edp

I agree with Allison.

EDP is making a classical stat analysis error.  He is saying that because women
live, in the aggregate, longer, it is not meaningful to consider risk-elevators
which occur as part of their jobs.  This view is in error on two counts:

1.)  It is improper to associate the measure of "risk of death by murder of
women" with the dependent variable "life expectancy of men," be this men as
"men only" or men as a portion of the superset "all people."  "Risk to women"
should be associated with "deaths of women."

2.)  There could be a more significant obsevation possible, based upon studying
the "risk to women" observation.  One hypothesis which could (and should) be
tested (I have already stated it) is "Are women assigned to a statistically
significantly higher percentage of duties which expose any (male or female)
worker to risk of death by murder?"

Such as second shift at the mini-mart?

thomas

P.S.  And what does any of this have to do with defending one's self from 
sexual harassment?  Lots.  The most convincing way to demonstrate harassment
or discrimination on the job is statistically.  A facetious example: (maybe)

Calculate the ratio of bust size to waist size for all of the female direct
reports of manager X (male, of course).  Regress this on salary increment
percentages for the last five years.  Observe.

If the major on-the-job danger women face is attack by a co-worker, then this
may indicate discrimination, showing that women are not given other dangerous 
jobs, such as coal miner, construction worker, etc. 

  SOURCE: THE BOSTON HERALD, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1991, PAGE 10.

        Court case aims to whip Digital Exec into Shape

  			By Margery Eagan

 Anita hill told us about alien hairs on Coke cans. Ever since Anita,
 an endless stream of American women have told horrific tales of 
 sexual harassment on the job. Dirty pinups, dirty words, unspeakable 
 humiliations. Now for a new frontier: the office bullwhip. Leather.
 At Digital Equipment Corp. - if you can imagine it- the computer giant, 
 the IBM wannabe, the bastion of progressive thinking; home to both the 
 pocket protector crowd and Dukakoid sensitivos, the sort who put together 
 Digital's "Valuing Differences Program," which celebrates employee diversity.
 (Could office bullwhips be embraced beneath such a diversified umbrella? on 
 the other hand, could this merely be another cautionary reminder that you 
 never know what lurks in the hearts of middle-class suburbanites?)
 The tale: a former Digital secretary, thirtysomething, claims her male 
 supervisor kept a seven-foot leather whip in his office. She said he called 
 this whip, a well-worn burgundy-colored model, his "friend" and his 
 "motivator" for female employees. She says he regularly sauntered about 
 waving the whip, cracking it in front of female secretaries and, at one
 point, cracking it across her ankle, causing excruciating pain.

 The secretary, Claudette Simard, says Digital failed to do anything about 
 whip-cracking marketing Exec Chester Bowles, married for 24 years and father 
 of two, even after she complained to both him and her supervisor during
 the 11 months the alleged harassment continued. Said Simard's attorney Helene
 Horn Figman, who's worked on harassment cases for eleven years, "I've heard
 a lot of heinous sexual harassment cases from clients. But when I heard this, 
 I nearly fell off my chair". She says Digital has never denied that Bowles
 kept a whip in his office, though its length, type and its role in office 
 activities, remains in dispute. "A supervisor allowed to keep a whip in the 
 workplace?" Figman said. "Its outrageous. I've never heard of anything like 
 it. Absolutely, this is the first whip story I've heard, ever."

 Figman said Simard began work at Digital in 1983 and had no problems until 
 Bowles arrived, along with his whip, in March 1988. The whip then took up 
 residence in plain view, leaning against his office wall or across a desk 
 or chair. The "motivator" was never hidden perhaps because, as a motivator,
 a hidden whip wouldn't work as well. Digital has declined comment on Simard's 
 civil suit against both it and Bowles, now pending in Middlesex Superior 
 Court. that has fueled speculation on what Digital's defense may be. Perhaps 
 the hi-tech conglomerate will argue that Bowles has a warped sense of humor. 
 The "motivator" was Chester's idea of a joke. maybe they'll say the bullwhip
 is in fact a Bowles family heirloom. Indeed, still unclear, and a crucial
 question in the case, is where and for what purpose did Chester acquire his 
 whip?

 Or perhaps, as court records indicate, Digital will argue there's nothing 
 inherently sexually harassing about bosses strolling among the secretarial 
 pool, talking to whips and, occasionally, as a sort of stress reducer,
 giving them healthy, jolting cracks across the water cooler. Court records 
 note that Webster's define "whip" as merely an instrument consisting of a 
 handle, a lash, and forming a flexible rod used for whipping. Nothing about 
 sex there. No reference to the Marquis the sade, whom Webster's does define: 
 "French soldier & pervert 1740-1814". But dictionary definitions do not define
 real life, Figman points out. and in real life seven-foot leather whips have
 overtones beyond Indiana Jones, all the way to the Marquis, to entrapment,
 intimidation, even to slavery. Said Figman, "This was a hostile environment. 
 You don't need Webster's to see if you should be offended".

 One last possibility: perhaps Digital will claim whip-cracking was just 
 Bowles' unique management style. Some managers give pep talks. Some run 
 contests for dinners at swank restaurants. And Bowles cracked the whip.
  "Some supervisors have unusual styles," said Figman. "But this is not normal.
 This is not a style." Period. Simard, single and self-supporting, left Digital
 in February 1989 claiming medical disability and severe emotional distress. 
 She has only recently been able to look for work. Reached yesterday at his 
 Digital office, Chester Bowles had no comment. But rest assured we will 
 follow this bull-whip's tortured path through the courts. Of the little
 we know about the whip, we can tell you this: It mysteriously disappeared 
 from Bowles' office just before Simard's first public complaint.

re .117

Very interesting article.

However, since the moderators are probably all still asleep, it falls upon
me to remind

		ALL OF YOU

that any comment on this article could be damaging to Digital.

Read the article.

Don't talk about it.

    Why is that, exactly?
    
    - If I comment on the case outside my house, on the way to work
      in the morning, is "Digital" somehow responsible?
    
    - If I make the same comment once I've got inside the DEC doors,
      is that potentially more damaging?
    
    - If I say it here, how does that increase the damage potential?
    
    (Assume in all cases that it's clearly my own opinion and that
     I obviously have no knowledge beyond what is in the public
     domain).
    

>    - If I say it here, how does that increase the damage potential?

In general, I think the answer to this last question is that
all internal documents and communications, electronic or
otherwise, including the contents of mail folders and notes
conferences, of a company are subject to pre-trial discovery
by the plaintiff(s) in a civil case.  Should anything found
during discovery be prejudicial to the company's defense, it
is likely to be used against it in court should the case go
to trial.  Therefore, some companies might not want their
employees to make such comments internally.

Dan

    Yeah, but it ought to be clear to anyone with more than
    two brain cells to rub together that anything said here
    is not in any way associated with An Official Company
    Viewpoint, and should be considered as no more meaningful
    than, say, conversations over beer in the nearby tavern.
    
    Especially since, if they do seize this file as evidence,
    they'll have this reply as part of the evidence.

 >     Yeah, but it ought to be clear to anyone with more than
 >     two brain cells to rub together that anything said here
 >     is not in any way associated with An Official Company
 >     Viewpoint

    That, unfortunately, leaves out lawyers, who may have more than
    two brain cells, but *never* rub them together...

    As far as I know, it's never been established whether or not, employee
    interest or business-related VAX Notes Conferences are subject to
    pre-trial discovery.  Once upon a time, I recall a declaration that
    they are "documents of the corporation" in some legal sense.
    
    Unofficial, but written and indexed statements of opinion might be
    helpful to the defense.
    
    For example, and this is hypothetical: "While I don't know the facts in
    this case, eccentric behavior by male managers towards female
    secretaries appears to be tolerated even when it makes the secretaries
    uncomfortable" and you can think up others.

    re .121
    
    >Yeah, but it ought to be clear to anyone with more than
    >two brain cells to rub together that anything said here
    >is not in any way associated with An Official Company
    >Viewpoint, and should be considered as no more meaningful
    >than, say, conversations over beer in the nearby tavern.
    
    That's the first time I ever heard the entire legal system damned in
    one note!  Two brain cells, indeed!  There is no requirement that
    otherwise intelligent lawyers, judges, and juries use any number of
    brain cells in court.  Only that they follow the letter of the law and
    be consistent with all previous errors of judgement.
    
    Now, back to your original note stream,
    
    Dick

  
  Re .121
  
  > Especially since, if they do seize this file as evidence, they'll have this
  > reply as part of the evidence.
  
  Considering how selective editing/quoting operates with the "amateurs"
  within this file, is there any point in writing any disclaimers that
  will simply be skipped by professional "bigots" ? 
  
  M'lud, from reply 1636.121 by a Mr MU::Porter, we see that "... it ought
  to be clear to anyone ... anything said here is ... An Official Company
  Viewpoint, and should be considered ... more meaningful than, say,
  conversations over beer in the nearby tavern."  :-) :-)
  
  On a more serious note, is this a cue to move all notes conferences outside
  of the US so that the pathetic attitude of "sue 'em now" can't subpoena any
  of the interesting discussions ? Well done the lawyers - free speech R.I.P.
  
  Frank

re your more serious note --

it has been my experience that censorship becomes an even greater problem
with any conference located outside the U.S., especially in the U.K.

    Re .114:
    
    > He is saying that because women live, in the aggregate, longer, it is
    > not meaningful to consider risk-elevators which occur as part of their
    > jobs.
    
    You said that in .63, and I explained in .67 that I was not saying any
    such thing.  Why are you repeating this false statement?
    
    I have not said that things that increase risk should not be studied. 
    By all means, study them.  By all means, study the things that increase
    risks in jobs, for men and for women.
    
    All I was saying is that let us not place special emphasis when there
    are not special risks.  Let us not place special emphasis on studying
    the risks for one group because that group has political support even
    though the facts show that that group is not at risk higher than other
    groups.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Anent .127 (edp):  I think political support or lack thereof should not
    determine matters of public health (or sexual harassment, for that
    matter.)  For example:  Many women get breast cancer, relatively many more
    than men; yet women live longer than men.  Do you advocate not "placing
    special emphasis on studying the risks for [that] group"?  Surely
    there are resources enough to study and attack a broad range of health
    concerns for men, women, and children in parallel.  Isn't that an entirely
    appropriate way to approach the problem?

    RE: .129  Steve Jong
    
    Good point!
    
    By the way, nearly all medical studies involving humans use MEN as
    subjects (even studies on breast cancer.)
    
    The physiology of women's bodies is regarded as too complicated for
    medical studies (even when studying diseases that occur more often
    in females.)
    
    I heard on CNN recently that a specific medical study of women is
    in the works, though, to correct this particular imbalance.

    
>    All I was saying is that let us not place special emphasis when there
>    are not special risks.  Let us not place special emphasis on studying
>    the risks for one group because that group has political support even
>    though the facts show that that group is not at risk higher than other
>    groups.

Finally!  Who the heck ever said any darn thing about "special emphasis?"
Women ARE at a higher risk than men!  40% of all on-the-job deaths of women
are due to being murdered, by a non-co-worker.  It's 2% for men.  You have
mis-represented the facts.  No special study is required.  It's plainly 
obvious what the problem is.  Women stand a significantly higher risk of 
being murdered on the job than men, both as a per-total-employee percentage,
and as a total straight number.  

AND NOBODY NOTICES!  Sounds like discrimination/harassment to me, pal.

thomas

P.S.  SET READ ENABLE FALSE.  (I can't take him anymore.)

    Re .131:
    
    > Who the heck ever said any darn thing about "special emphasis?" Women
    > ARE at a higher risk than men!  40% of all on-the-job deaths of women
    > are due to being murdered, by a non-co-worker.  It's 2% for men.  You
    > have mis-represented the facts.
    
    First, I request your source for that information.
    
    Second, it is you who has misrepresented the facts.  As a previous note
    pointed out, that deaths for women by murder by a non-coworker on the
    job are higher than other deaths does not show that the risk for women
    is higher.  The alternative pointed out by the previous note is that
    men are in jobs where the risks of dying from other causes are higher,
    thus they die from, for example, accidents at a higher rate and only 2%
    of their deaths are from murder by a non-coworker.  In this example,
    women would not be dying from these other causes, so 40% of their
    deaths would be by murder by a non-coworker.
    
    Your statistics are a percentage of women's deaths by murder by a
    non-coworker on the job and a percentage of men's deaths on the job. 
    Because these are percentages of different things (women's deaths by
    murder are a percentage of women's deaths; men's deaths by murder are a
    percentage of men's deaths), they cannot be directly compared.  Your
    numbers cannot be used to compare women's risks to men's risks without
    more information.
    
    Consider the figure that 40% of all on-the-job deaths of women are due
    to murder by a non-coworker.  This figure compares deaths by that cause
    to deaths by all other causes:  The former is 40% of deaths on the job;
    the latter is 60%.  The figure compares these two things, so it gives
    us information about these causes.  The figure does not compare women's
    risks to men's, so it does not give us information about that.
    
    Your figures are completely useless for comparing women's risks to
    men's.                            
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .113:
    
    > If your stating a fact, please present the evidence and plan to
    > defend it.  I contend it's not true.
    
    The following is from _Statistical Abstract of the United States 1989_,
    109th edition, published by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of
    the Census.  According to table 106, the expectation of life at birth
    in 1987, preliminary figures, was 71.5 years for males and 78.3 years
    for females.  In 1986, final figures, it was 71.3 and 78.3.  Back in
    1950 it was 65.6 and 71.1.  For every year in between, it was greater
    for females than males.
    
    Table 107 shows average expectation of life in years at other ages: 
    20, 40, 50, and 65.  For 1986, it is 52.8 for males at age 20 and 59.4
    for females.  At age 40, it is 34.5 and 40.2.  At 50 it is 25.8 and
    31.0.  At 65 it is 14.6 and 18.6.  Table 108 shows a breakdown of
    average lifetime by states; it is longer for females than males in
    every state.  It is a consistent gap of about seven years.
    
    Table 109 shows expectation of life for all ages from birth to age 65
    in incremeents of one year, and then it shows ages 70, 75, 80, 85 and
    over.  This is for a person's age in 1986.  Again, in every instance,
    it is greater for females than males.  This table also shows expected
    deaths per 1,000 people at the specified age.  In every instance except
    the last,the death rate is higher for males than females.  (The last
    entry in the table says that everybody who reaches the "85 or over"
    category will die before leaving the category; it is 1,000 per 1,000
    people in the category for both males and females.)  The expected number
    of deaths for a group of 1,000 males aged 30 in 1986 is 1.69, for
    females it is .60.  The ratio of male death rate to female is around 2
    to 3 for most of the ages in the table.
    
    Table 121 shows death rates from cancer.  Overall in 1986, it was 213.5
    per 100,000 for males and 176.9 for females.  In some categories and
    age groups, the female death rate is higher than the male rate. 
    Females have higher deaths rates from breast cancer, cancer in genital
    organs (except in the 75-year and up range).  Males have higher death
    rates from cancers in these areas:  respiratory, intrathoracic,
    digestive organ, peritoneum, lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues,
    urinary organs, lip, oral cavity, and pharynx, and leukemia.
    
    Table 122 shows deaths rates from heart disease.  For males in 1986, it
    was 333.1 per 100,000.  For females, it was 302.7.
    
    Table 123 shows death rates from accidents and violence.  In 1986, it
    was 85.8 per 100,000 for males and 33.2 for females.  By motor vehicle
    accidents, it was 29.2 for males and 11.5 for females.  By all other
    accidents, it was 25.7 for males and 12.8 for females.  By suicide, it
    was 22.3 for males and 5.9 for females.  By homicide, it was 8.6 for
    males and 3.0 for females.
    
    Yes, that means males have a greater chance of being murdered than
    females.  It is not true that females have a greater risk of being
    murdered.  The risk is greater for males than females in every age
    category, 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85 and
    over.
    
    Table 282 shows the homicide victim rate for 1960, 1970, 1975, and the
    years from 1980 to 1986.  In each case, the rate for males is more than
    twice that for females.  In 1986, it was 8.6 per 100,000 for males and
    3.0 for females.  (The real disproportions here are in race; it is a
    shame that the false claims of increased risk to females hide the true
    injustices to blacks.)
    
    Table 287 shows the victimization rate for crimes against persons for
    years 1973 to 1986, including attempted crimes.  In every year, the
    rate is greater for males than females.  In 1973, it was 43, 53, and 53
    per 1,000 for white, black, and hispanic males, respectively, and 21,
    32, and 22 for females.  In 1986, it was 35, 39, and 39 for males and
    21, 29, and 15 for females.
    
    I could not find any figures on workplace deaths broken down by gender;
    I would like to see them.  But from the statistics above, it is clear
    that males have the greater chance of dying throughout their lives,
    from murder, accidents, and medical reasons.  It is males who now
    suffer the greater risk of death, not females.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .129:
    
    > Surely there are resources enough to study and attack a broad range
    > of health concerns for men, women, and children in parallel.  Isn't
    > that an entirely appropriate way to approach the problem?
    
    Who said it isn't?
    
    
    				-- edp

	Do the statistics indicate how much of edp's work day is 
spent noting instead of working?

Re: .133

>    I could not find any figures on workplace deaths broken down by gender;
>    I would like to see them.  But from the statistics above, it is clear
>    that males have the greater chance of dying throughout their lives,
>    from murder, accidents, and medical reasons.  It is males who now
>    suffer the greater risk of death, not females.

Uh, "edp" - you might want to look back at your choice of words . . .

Last time I checked, there was a 100% chance that men will die at some
point in their lives, and a 100% chance that women will die.  :-)

				- - Steve

    Re .135:

    > 	Do the statistics indicate how much of edp's work day is spent
    > noting instead of working?

    I arrive at the office early, often the first person of my group in. 
    Further, I took leave on Tuesday and used part of it to get the
    statistics from the library.  And I type 120 words per minute.


    Re .136:

    Actually, one study recently estimated that only about half of the
    people who have ever lived have died.  Even if it is not half, there is
    certainly still a statistically significant percentage of people who
    were born but never died.  :-)
    
    
    				-- edp

> 	And I type 120 words per minute.

Oh really ?  how did you measure that ?

    re .137
    
    
    Please stay on the subject or close this note!
    
    
    buzz

Re:      <<< Note 1636.139 by JUPITR::BUSWELL "We're all temporary" >>>

>    Please stay on the subject or close this note!
    
Why should this be the only note in this conference to stay on the subject?  :-)

-  David

RE .139

Did you really mean to ask the question of note .137 since I re-read the
note and it was entirely on the subject being discussed.  Granted that the
two subjects were on two of the other ratholes that this note has gone down
but none the less the reply itself did pertain to the current discussion.

Or was your real purpose in writing because of the author rather than the
subject?

  RE:.117
  This article appears to be as a result of a decision of the Middlesex
  Superior Court.  A summary of the decision appeared in the Massachusetts
  Lawyers Weekly, October 28, 1991, Page 20 M.L.W. 260.  My wife is an attorney
  and receives it weekly.  I happened to pick it up and notice the opinion.
  I am entering the summary in its entirety below.  While permission is given
  to forward and copy this note is granted, it must be copied IN ITS ENTIRETY
  and not pieces extracted to prevent additional legal problems.


  MLW:

  Superior Court
  Employment
  Sexual Harassment - Supervisor's Alleged Cracking of Whip

    Where a plaintiff alleges (1) that the defendant, her male supervisor, kept
  a seven-foot leather whip in his office, referred to it as his "friend" and
  "motivator" of female employees, (2) that the codefendant employer knew or
  should have known of the supervisor's conduct but failed to take action to
  prevent it, and (3) that the offensive conduct caused her to quit her job, I
  conclude that these allegations are sufficient to support sexual harassment
  claims against both defendants.

    Accordingly, I shall deny the defendants' motions to dismiss the harassment
  claims (Counts I and II).

    I shall also deny motions to dismiss: a sex discrimination claim against the
  supervisor (Count III), as the plaintiff need not assert a separate statutory
  basis for this claim in addition to the above-described allegations of
  harassment; a malicious interference with employment claim against the
  supervisor (Count V), as the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a business
  relationship of economic benefit, the defendant's intentional and malicious
  interference with that relationship, and a loss of advantage by the plaintiff
  directly resulting from the defendant's conduct; a breach of contract claim
  against the employer (Count VI), as an employment manual distributed by the
  employer potentially provided the basis for a finding of an implied contract
  existed between the parties; and a claim against the supervisor for 
  intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count X), as such a claim is
  not be preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act since a violation of an
  employee's civil rights is not a personal injury arising out of and in the
  course of employment.

    In contrast, I shall grant dismissal with respect to claims: against the
  employer for wrongful discharge (Count IV), as "a discharge involving
  sexual harassment or discrimination has not been recognized as against
  'public policy'" as defined in Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. 373 Mass.
  96 (1977); against the employer for negligent supervision (Count VII), as
  this claim is barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision;
  and against the supervisor for invasion of privacy (Count VIII), as 
  Massachusetts does not recognize a common law tort of invasion of privacy and
  the conduct alleged is not covered by the state privacy statute (G.L.c 214,
  S 1B).

    Simard v. Digital Equipment Corp. et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-187-91)
  (11 pages)(Todd,J.)(Middlesex)(Civil Action No. 91-1977)

	RE:.142
  Some notes that I want to add for those not familiar with the legal system
  in Massachusetts:

  1) This is a decision by a single judge (Judge Todd) sitting the the
  Middlesex Superior Court and can be appealed by both parts to the Appeals
  Court and the the Supreme Judicial Court.

  2) The decision is based on a motion apparently brought by attorneys for
  the defense seeking to dismiss all counts or as many of them as possible.

  3) The decision does not decide the case, it only decides which Counts in
  the complaint have enough validity in Law and documentation to go forward
  to trial.

  4) The merits of the complaint have still to be decided at trial.

		Danny